Contra Crawford: A Defense of Baptism of Desire & Periodic Continence

Contra Crawford:

A Defense of
Baptism of Desire
& Periodic Continence

Dylan Fellows
Christopher Conlon

Contra Crawford:

A Defense of
Baptism of Desire
& Periodic Continence

Dylan Fellows
Christopher Conlon
©2018

Dedication

To our wives who can have us back now. To everyone who
provided feedback and support. To Our Holy Mother Church,
whose restoration we patiently await. And to The Glorious Virgin
Mary, on whose Assumption this work was finalized.

IV

You are reading the electronic version of Contra Crawford: A
Defense of Baptism of Desire & Periodic Continence. Please
digitally share this work if you find it useful. The book may be read
online or downloaded for free at www.archive.org and hardcopies
are available here.

You may wish to set your .pdf or e-reader to 100%
magnification for a better reading experience.

Preface

Purpose

This book’s purpose is to provide a defense of baptism of
desire and periodic continence against arguments made by
Reverend Dominic Crawford in his (2018) Untitled Booklet.
Crawford proposes and advances positions which 1) deny the
possibility and salvific quality of baptism of desire, and 2) argue
that periodic continence (often called “Natural Family Planning” or
“NFP”) is sinful under any circumstance. Although we are
responding to Crawford, his arguments are more or less
representative of the common arguments against baptism of
desire and periodic continence. As such, readers who have never
read his booklet should nevertheless find our work relevant and
contributive to these ongoing controversies.

Background

Some brief background to Reverend Crawford’s booklet,
although not necessary, will be useful. More than a year ago,
Bishop Mark Pivarunas (Superior General, CMRI) refused to ordain
Reverend Crawford due to his (Crawford’s) beliefs regarding
baptism and periodic continence. Bishop Pivarunas sent Crawford
a letter with eighteen questions challenging his beliefs (Appendix
A). Crawford composed a short reply to that letter in defense of his
views (Appendix B). FHis reply was written on January 25 th , 2017.

Since Reverend Crawford’s initial reply, his arguments
against baptism of desire have changed and he has seen fit to
publish a new, longer defense of his views in booklet form
(Appendix C). The format of Crawford’s Untitled Booklet is
essentially a long-form letter addressed “To His Excellency
[Pivarunas] and Whom[ever] it may concern.” Crawford begins
with a short introduction and then replies to Pivarunas’ eighteen
questions. It is this (updated) reply of Crawford’s which we will
primarily be addressing.

Audience

The intended audience for this work is fairly broad. First in
mind we of course have Reverend Crawford along with anyone who
believes similarly regarding baptism of desire and periodic
continence, since the bulk of this work is a direct criticism of those

VI

views. But we do not limit our audience only to those with whom
we disagree; for those who are in doubt about the issues, we hope
that this work will serve as an instrument of resolving those
doubts, and for those who happen to agree with us we hope that
this work will set a standard of tone, content, and approach for
engaging these controversies both online and in-person.

We do not think that it is necessary for any reader to be
intimately familiar with the controversy nor the arguments from
both sides, since we will regularly be summarize each. And to that
end, the reader will find an appendix consisting of Bishop
Pivarunas’s original questions sent to Reverend Crawford
(Appendix A), a copy of Reverend Crawford’s (2017) reply to those
questions (Appendix B), as well as a copy of Crawford’s (2018)
Untitled Booklet (Appendix C). These are all scans of the original
documents. These are included to a) hold us accountable for
properly representing the views of our opponents, b) for the
assurance of the reader that we do not misrepresent anyone’s
views, c) for the convenience of the reader who may switch back
and forth to see how our criticism follows Crawford’s ideas, and d)
because we believe that the Bishop’s questions and Reverend
Crawford’s replies are prototypically representative of the general
arguments on each side of the debate. They therefore serve more
than just the narrow purpose of showing what the Bishop and
Crawford specifically think, but the broader purpose of attesting to
what those who affirm and deny baptism of desire generally think.

As to the audience of our work, one note of caution is
required. In Chapter Five we will be discussing the lawfulness of
periodic continence. This discussion unavoidably involves topics
more suited to mature, married Catholics or those whose
profession or vocation have relatively desensitized them to such
discussions, such as clergy or medical professionals. We will of
course discuss the topic with the utmost delicacy and dryness.

Overview

Our concerns about this Untitled Booklet’s contents are
multiple, and they extend beyond the mere denial of baptism of
desire and periodic continence. Arguably more objectionable than
the denial of these teachings per se is that the way in which they
are denied is premised in a virtual abandonment of the Catholic

vii

rule of faith. So before delving into Crawford’s actual arguments,
we will rebut the principles of Catholic learning for which he
advocates. Throughout this book we will continually allude to and
revisit this theme, because a dismissal of the proximate rule of
faith (the ordinary magisterium) is the principal cause of these
errors.

Regarding baptism of desire and periodic continence
specifically, Reverend Crawford’s arguments can only be
maintained by a selective dismissal of the very sources he uses to
make his arguments. His arguments fail to adequately consider
the distinctions, contexts, and philosophical considerations that
the Church herself used when teaching about these doctrines.

Even if we do abandon the ordinary magisterium, the texts
Crawford uses still do not justify a denial of baptism of desire or
periodic continence.

Finally, we discovered that Crawford’s scholarship and
fidelity to Catholic source material are inadequate at best. With
regularity Crawford made errors in transcribing and citing his
sources. These errors range from technical faux-pas to the blatant
manipulation of source material.

We are of the opinion that when an author sets out to
engage in theological debate, scrupulous truthfulness is the best
policy. As one moralist put it, regarding inter-Catholic
controversies:

Above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes
alike, give that serious attention which does not
misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement,
does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve
the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit
(Vermeersch 1913, §§5-6).

With that spirit is our criticism and commentary offered.

Format

We have endeavored to present our comments and
criticism in an ordered, predictable fashion. Most chapters will
begin with a basic introduction and summary of Reverend
Crawford’s position, and then proceed with our rebuttal and
supporting evidence for our claims. This procedure will be

generally ordered with topical headings which can be previewed in
the table of Contents. A complete bibliography of references used
for our arguments may be found at the end of this work.

References will also be cited within the text, indicating the name of
the author, the year of their publication, and the page or
paragraph number (symbolized as “§”) where the cited or
referenced text may be found. When citing primary sources (e.g.
Ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc.) we will endeavor to use
Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma as far as is possible, since
it is a widely accepted, widely accessible, ecclesiastically
approved, and standardized text.

Two special notes regarding citations may be useful to
readers. First, the citation style for Denzinger indicates the
paragraph, rather than the page number in Denzinger 1 . Second,
readers may desire to consult the special citation conventions
which are traditionally used for St. Thomas Aquinas:

Citation Style for St. Thomas:

ST = Summa Theologiae,

II, 11= Part (e.g. 1= First part; I, ll=First part of
the Second Part; lll=Third part)

Q#= Question number (e.g. Q. 47= Question 47)
a#= Article Number (e.g. a. 1= article 1)

Example: ST II, II, Q47, al = Summa
Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part,
Question 47, article 1

Disclaimer

We are not authorities. It is our firm will and commitment
to faithfully represent the mind of the Catholic Church. To the
extent that we, by God’s grace, do that, we are grateful for the
opportunity to be an instrument of His will. To the extent that we,
by human weakness, do not, we beseech his pardon. We submit
every keystroke to the judgment of the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church.

1 Example: “Denz. 798” indicates Denzinger paragraph 798, not page 798

Contents

Preface.v

Purpose.v

Background.v

Audience.v

Overview.vi

Format.vii

Disclaimer.viii

Chapter One: On Catholic Learning.1

Introduction.1

Summary of Reverend Crawford’s Position on Infallibility and

the Teaching Church.1

Crawford’s Exclusion of The Ordinary Magisterium and a

Definition of the Same.2

What Infallibility is.2

The Apostolicity of the Ordinary Magisterium.5

The Church “Democratized?”.6

A “Simple" Catholic Faith.10

Concluding Thoughts.13

Summary.14

Chapter Two: On Justification.17

Introduction.17

Summary and Evolution of Reverend Crawford’s Position.. 17

On the Necessity of Faith, Flope, and Charity.19

Faith (Flope and Charity) does not only Begin with

Baptism.19

Supernatural and Natural Faith.20

The “Sacrament of Faith".22

Does Sin Remain?.23

“Infused Virtues”.25

Baptism as the “Cause” of Justification.26

Desire=lntent?.29

Catechumens and the Catholic Church.31

Membership Pertains to the External.33

A Terminological (not Doctrinal) Dispute.34

Concluding Thoughts.36

Summary.38

X

Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, and

Vatican II.41

Introduction.41

The Logical Problem.41

Ignoring Distinctions.42

Heretics are not Credible Sources for the True Sense of

Catholic Doctrine.44

Concluding Thoughts.45

Summary.46

Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors .49

Introduction.49

Canon Law.49

Infallibility and Immutability.50

Universality.51

Infallibility of the Footnotes.54

The Council of Braga.55

Disingenuous Catechumens.57

Nazianzen and Ambrose.59

“They can be Wrong”.62

Concluding Thoughts.64

Summary.65

Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence.67

Introduction.67

The Question.68

Archbishop Murray’s Letter.69

Context and Meaning.70

Milestones in the Church and Science: A Brief History From

1853-1951.73

The “Intrinsic Nature of the Act”.76

Superseding and Subordinating.79

Avoidance versus Deliberate Frustration.81

Affirmative and Negative Precepts.84

The Control of Man.87

Providence.88

Presumption.89

Casti Connubii Quotes Analysis.90

Concluding Thoughts.95

Summary.96

XI

Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric Passed off as “Catholic Teaching”.99

Introduction.99

Inattentiveness and Mis-citations: Unam Sanctam and St.

Thomas.100

What’s the Point? Pope St. Leo the Great.101

“Only One” Problem: Additions to Pope Clement V’s

Teaching.104

Franken-Augustine: Reassembling the Doctor of Grace... 106

A “Foolish” Omission: Pope St. Innocent 1.110

The Curious Allocution: Pope Pius XII.Ill

Making no Distinctions where Distinctions are Made: Pope

Leo XIII.113

A not so “Innocent” Omission: Pope Innocent III.115

Regarding Quotes about Water.116

What Happened?.116

A Pupil, not a Mastermind.117

Michael Malone and Adam Miller.119

Bargain Bin Rule of Faith.121

Conclusion and Summary.122

Chapter Seven: Conclusion: on Truth.125

Bibliography.135

Appendix A: Bishop Pivarunas’ Questions.147

Appendix B: Reverend Crawford’s (2017) Replies.151

AppendixC: Reverend Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet. 167

Chapter One: On Catholic Learning

Introduction

Before diving into Reverend Crawford’s actual arguments, it
is paramount to first discuss the rule of faith. We agree with the
quote Crawford provided from Pope Benedict XV’s (1914) Ad
Beatissimi Apostolorum, when at the advent of World War I the
Holy Father appealed for world peace and reminded the world’s
bishops of the importance of holding the Catholic faith in all its
integrity: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit
of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole
rejected” (§24; Cited in Crawford p. 2). After all, Our Lord called
St. Thomas faithless for doubting only one teaching (John 20:27).
Given the severe burden placed on Catholics to believe the
Catholic faith, it is a matter of serious urgency to discover what
Catholic teaching actually is.

The obvious answer is that Catholic teaching is “whatever
the Church teaches.” This is a simple and true answer, but it
becomes complicated in instances like these where the very point
of controversy is precisely what the Church teaches in the first
place. So we must step back and ask a more basic question: how
does the Church teach?

Summary of Reverend Crawford’s Position on Infallibility and the
Teaching Church

In his (2018) Untitled Booklet, Reverend Crawford does not
devote any exclusive space to discussing the rule of faith, but
throughout the book he makes comments which, when pieced
together, provide something of an outline for understanding what
his views on infallibility and the teaching Church are. He makes a
few statements in the beginning regarding what is and isn’t
compulsory for Catholics to believe, arguing that we must accept
all which is solemnly defined and reject whatever contradicts that
(p. 2). He has a somewhat longer and more rhetorical treatment
of the issue near the end when he argues that the Church is not a
democracy and that numbers do not matter for determining the
truth (pp. 43 & 47). In reviewing his comments about Catholic
belief throughout and piecing them together, Crawford’s position
appears to us as this: that the rule of Catholic faith consists
predominantly in the solemn definitions either personally issued by

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 2

a pope or issued by an ecumenical council under the pope’s
supervision and with the pope’s approval, and short of this solemn
magisterium there is no infallibility, except when some teaching or
another of the ordinary magisterium coincides with or affirms
previously established solemn teaching.

Crawford’s Exclusion of The Ordinary Magisterium and a Definition
of the Same

Crawford’s rule of faith excludes the ordinary magisterium.
The Ordinary Magisterium consists in what all of the bishops
across the world teach in union with the pope. This includes
doctrines universally taught in sermons, letters, theology texts,
catechisms, and so on—the “ordinary” ways of teaching, as
opposed to the extraordinary, or solemn ways of teaching (e.g.,
ecumenical councils, ex cathedra definitions, etc.). This does not
mean that only some work personally authored by a bishop would
be eligible to contribute to the ordinary magisterium. For priests,
theologians, etc. are all only allowed and approved to teach insofar
as they are sent and approved to do so by some other authority,
such as a bishop or even the pope directly. Their teaching,
therefore, is tantamount to the teaching of their superior when it is
commissioned or allowed by them.

When we use the term “ordinary magisterium” we are referring
specifically to whatever is universally taught in the way just
described. Even a short perusal of religious books will lead us to
discover that authors disagree on various, legitimately disputed
points. The ordinary magisterium refers to and includes only those
teachings which are agreed upon by a moral unanimity. What
authors have perennially disagreed about is instructive and
interesting, but due to the lack of universality, simply not part of
the ordinary magisterium.

What Infallibility is 2

Now, Crawford says that “we are never obliged to accept
anything that contradicts a defined Dogma of the faith” (p. 2,

2 More advanced readers may desire further explication in this section. Note that it is
beyond the scope of this work to discuss in intricate detail all of the aspects of infallibility or
those closely related to it, so left unmentioned or barely mentioned will be concepts and
distinctions such as infallible safety, passive infallibility, dogmatic facts, and so on. Our goal

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 3

emphasis retained). And of course we would agree with that, it is a
simple restatement of St. Paul’s warning against false teachers
(Gal. 1:8). But the question is whether or not it is even possible for
certain contradictions to occur. The Church’s infallibility prevents
contradictions between the ordinary and extraordinary
magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the extraordinary
magisterium. We realize this is an arguable claim to which
Crawford and those who agree with him will protest. But we will
set out to prove the claim. We will begin by discussing what
infallibility is.

It sometimes appears that traditional Catholics in general
do not have the firmest grasp of what infallibility means. To be
sure, when it is said that a teaching is infallible, or that the
magisterium (extraordinary or ordinary) is infallible, the word
“infallible” is not merely a synonym for saying that the teaching or
teaching body in question is right. To say that something is
infallible is to say that something is protected from even the
possibility of error. So of course anything infallible is, as a direct
consequence, right—but to be infallible is to be something far more
honorable and distinguished than it is to simply “be right.”

Infallibility is a true and proper protection from God. When
we say that a specific teaching or a specific organ of teaching is
infallible, we are not just saying that such a teaching happened to
be true, nor are we saying that such a teaching is true as a matter
of course, such as how we might say it is “true” that a glass
dropped onto the sidewalk will break. Instead, we are saying that
as a matter of divine providence the teaching could never, not
even in principle, have been false. It is no more possible for an
infallible teaching or infallible source of teaching to be false than it
is possible for Christ to have never risen from the dead. As Fr.
Lyons (1891) put it,

[Infallibility] does not mean merely freedom from actual

error... it means more, freedom from the possibility of

here is apologetic, so we wish to avoid being overly technical and to instead simply provide
the “meat and potatoes” of the issue.

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 4

erring—freedom from the very liability to err (p. 3, emphasis
retained).

It bears repeating: Infallibility firmly cements into the very fabric of
our raw, ontological reality a real, true, and proper impossibility of
error.

So, the idea that the ordinary magisterium is only infallible
when it agrees with the solemn magisterium is an idea that
depends on a fundamental misunderstanding of what infallibility is
in the first place. Rather than seeing “being right” as the
consequence or effect of infallibility, this argument views “being
right” as the condition of infallibility. Obviously this is just a
circular argument. We might as well say that we are all infallible
time keepers—so long as we look at our watches. The word
becomes quickly meaningless when it is used in such a way.

And observe how very quickly Catholic learning becomes
inverted by this view of the ordinary magisterium. What do we call
an activity where one takes some work or another, checks it
against another work, and after checking comes to a conclusion
regarding the work’s correctness? Our home-schooling Catholic
parents know that this is called grading, not learning. So even if
one says they believe in the infallibility of the ordinary
magisterium, if they only believe what it teaches once they’ve
checked to see if the solemn magisterium teaches the same thing,
they clearly aren’t acting as though it’s infallible. Because they’re
not learning from it.

Such is a fundamentally anxious and suspicious view of the
Church. Rather than behaving with docility and submission, one is
ever-suspicious of what is proposed through the Church’s usual
way of teaching. A catechism isn’t viewed as an instrument of
learning, but as a potential trap. Devotional manuals are spiritual
Trojan horses and the approved works of saints, doctors, fathers,
etc. are doctrinal decoys. All belief is suspended until some
teaching or another can be checked against the solemn decrees.
And as a matter of course, the ultimate outcome of this method
isn’t one of enlightenment but of abandonment. One can only
grade the Church’s effort for so long before exhaustion sets in.
With this approach, the teaching effort of the Church as
manifested through the lives of the saints, spiritual manuals,

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 5

catechisms, theology texts, etc. will ultimately be relegated to a
dusty shelf.

Thankfully, anxiety regarding the ordinary magisterium’s
content can be dispelled quickly because it is quite impossible for
it to be in contradiction with the solemn magisterium. Vatican I
(1870) taught in its chapter on faith that

By divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be
believed which are contained in the written word of God
and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the
Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her
ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as
divinely revealed (Denz. 1792, emphases added).

As Pope Pius IX’s (1864) Syllabus of Errors made clear, error has
no rights; and as Reverend Crawford said, we can never be obliged
to accept error. By the Church, least of all! Can the Mystical Body
and Bride of Christ compel us, with divine and Catholic faith, to
assent to error? But she so compels—with solemn teaching—
exactly that degree of assent from us to the ordinary magisterium.
Clearly, this precludes the possibility of the ordinary magisterium
teaching error.

The Apostolicity of the Ordinary Magisterium

St. Augustine, one of the Church’s most eminent doctors,
said against the Manicheans that “For my part, I should not
believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic
Church” (Ch. 3, §3). But Augustine wrote in the late 4 th and early
5 th centuries, about a thousand years before the solemn definition
of the scriptural canon at Trent. While one may point out that
earlier councils, like Carthage, settled a canon, these were not
instances of the solemn magisterium since they were only local
councils. There simply was no solemn authority to which he could
appeal regarding scripture’s contents yet. St. Augustine could only
have been referring to Scripture as proposed for belief by the
ordinary magisterium.

The infallibility—that is, the impossibility of error—enjoyed by
the ordinary magisterium is a teaching which was explicated very
early on in the Church. One of the most notable Patristic examples

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 6

of this is St. Vincent Lerins’ “rule 3 ” (434), which poignantly
asserted that:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care
must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been
believed everywhere, always, by all... This rule we shall
observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. (The
Commonitorium, Ch. 2, §4).

St. Vincent’s rule has unfortunately been misunderstood by many
Catholics today, particularly those who adopt a “recognize and
resist" attitude toward the Post-Vatican II changes and their
authors. It is not uncommon for such types to argue that St.
Vincent’s rule compels us to believe only that which is universal in
space (i.e., throughout the Catholic world everywhere) and time
(i.e., throughout Catholic history always).

But St. Vincent himself dispels this notion. And perhaps
anticipating that Catholics in the modern era would be inclined to
hastily conclude before they properly understood, Cardinal
Franzelin (1875), a Jesuit and contemporary of Vatican I, extracted
St. Vincent’s explanation. Franzelin explains that universality
simply means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only
when the present universality of a doctrine cannot be confirmed is
it ever necessary to appeal to antiquity. And the appeal to antiquity
is not an attempt to measure whether a particular belief was held
always, but rather an attempt to determine if it was ever
universally held at any point. Either universality or antiquity, by
themselves , “suffice to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine”
(Sec. II, §§b-d).

The Church “Democratized?”

In other words, if a teaching is universal at any time— which
is just another way of saying that if a teaching is proposed by the
ordinary magisterium at any time— this alone suffices to prove that
the teaching is truly Catholic doctrine. Now, Reverend Crawford
makes one of his lengthier arguments by contending that numbers
don’t matter when it comes to determining what the Church
teaches. Fie rhetorically asks,

Do you deny a Catholic Dogma because you are influenced
by the ‘number of people?’ Do you think the Catholic

3 This is also sometimes called the “Vincentian Canon.

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 7

Church is a Democratic Society made up of fallible bishops
and theologians, or is the Church a Monarchial Society
founded by Christ upon the infallibility of Peter, as its Head
and Supreme Ruler? (p. 47)

But he presents a false dichotomy. Solemn teaching itself
frequently justifies its conclusions based on the assent of the
ordinary magisterium.

For instance, in explaining how papal infallibility can be
known to be a divinely revealed truth, Vatican I argues in part from
the universal assent of the Church (Denz. 1836). That is to say,
the Vatican Council regarded as a proof of divinely revealed truth
the universal activity of the world’s bishops. Pope Pius XII, in
Munificentissiumus Deus (1950) provides a similar rationale for
the definition of the Assumption (Denz. 2332). At the Council of
Vienne (1312), Pope Clement V discusses whether or not grace
and virtue are communicated as habits to infants at baptism, and
concludes that they are with the following justification:

Forming grace and virtue are conferred on children as on
adults [is the opinion which is] more probable, more
consonant, and more in agreement with the words of the
saints and the modern doctors of theology" (Denz. 483,
emphasis added).

Later we will see that Reverend Crawford actually cites the Council
of Vienne, but ignores this aspect of it. At any rate, the presence
of the ordinary magisterium is tremendously difficult to avoid, even
in the solemn texts themselves.

The “argument against numbers” offered by Crawford is
just a very plain strawman. When we or others insist on the
infallibility of the ordinary magisterium and the compulsory nature
of Catholic belief toward it, our insistence has nothing at all to do
with “democratizing” the Church or claiming that whatever a
majority believes is true by virtue of the sheer force of numbers.
Pope Leo X (1520) did not only have numbers in mind when he
condemned Martin Luther for saying:

[Condemned proposition of Martin Luther, no. 28] If the
pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he
would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the
contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation,

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 8

until one alternative is condemned and another approved
by a general Council. (Denz. 768)

On the contrary, Pope Leo was very probably just sensitive to
exactly what we have been arguing.

Still, anxieties may persist over whether or not the ordinary
magisterium can be infallible without undermining the supremacy
of Peter’s Office. But these anxieties are unwarranted. Consider
that while we may legitimately say “the Church is infallible” and
just as legitimately say “the pope is infallible” or “This ecumenical
council is infallible,” there is only one infallibility, and that is the
infallibility of the pope. As Parente (1941) adroitly explains in his
Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology:

As man’s life is one but derives from the soul and is
diffused through all the body, so infallibility is diffused and
circulates in the whole Church, both in the teaching Church
and in the learning Church, but dependently on the head
(pp. 142-43).

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium depends on the pope,
and is in fact a consequence of his own infallibility as supreme
teacher of the Church. So as we see, what all the bishops do
against the pope, or when there is no pope, is in no way a
legitimate exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and is in fact not
the ordinary magisterium at all. But what they all do dependent on
the pope is most certainly infallible.

Sedevacantists in particular (among whom Crawford counts
himself) make a point of keeping this in mind, because it solves so
many of the theological dilemmas caused by Vatican II. Without a
pope, there is no active infallibility in the Church, and nothing to
protect the vast majority of her bishops from teaching all manner
of error, just as happened at Vatican II.

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium proceeds from
the pope, so we know that if all of his bishops teach something
that he is also teaching, or if all of his bishops teach something
and he simply refrains from what Vatican I described as “the right
and duty of proscribing [i.e., condemning or censuring error]”

(Denz. 1798), then we know that the teaching is dependent upon
him, and surely free from any error. The ordinary magisterium is
not in any way at all somehow detractive of the pope’s infallibility.

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 9

On the contrary, it is a logical consequence thereof, one which
testifies to the sheer splendor, scope, and majesty of papal
infallibility.

Besides, the Church’s indefectibility actually depends on
the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. For, as St. Augustine
and St. Vincent Lerins both implied earlier, and as all
ecclesiologists admit, Catholics quite naturally learn from it—not
from the solemn texts, which are issued, at best, once every three
generations or so. The ordinary magisterium is often called the
proximate rule of faith, precisely because it is nearest to Catholic
life and learning, and has more influence over what the Church
believes at a given moment in time than anything else. Consider
St. Robert Bellarmine (1588), the Doctor of the Papacy, great
counter-reformationist, and contemporary of the Council of Trent,
who treats the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium as a
necessary safeguard of the Church’s indefectibility:

The Church absolutely cannot err, neither in matters
absolutely necessary, nor in others which must be believed
or proposed that we must do, whether they are expressly
held in scriptures or not... [By this we mean] that which all
bishops teach as pertaining to the faith necessarily is true
and de fide (p. 320, emphasis retained) 4 .

Because:

If all bishops would err, the whole Church would also err,
because the people are held to follow their own pastors, by
what Our Lord says in Luke ‘He who hears you hears Me’
(Luke X) and ‘whatsoever they say, do (Mat. XXIII).’ (p.323,
emphasis added)

The Church cannot universally err for even a nanosecond, so it
follows neatly that she would employ a persistent and ordinary rule
of infallible teaching on which Catholics could always rely.

4 Keep in mind that St. Robert is the Doctor of the Papacy. He was the premiere
theologian used at Vatican I, with his defense of dozens of popes against the charges of
heresy levied from protestants was instrumental in providing needed doctrinal and historical
clarity to (naturally speaking) inspire the required confidence for the definition of papal
infallibility at Vatican I. St. Robert certainly did not regard the infallibility of the ordinary
magisterium as a threat to the Church’s constitution or Peter’s primacy, on the contrary he
saw it as a necessary consequence of each.

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 10

A “Simple” Catholic Faith

Now, even with all of this said, we know that Reverend
Crawford relies heavily on a certain rhetoric of “simpleness” or
“plainness” in doctrine. Even with the best of authorities,
including solemn ones—which by his own criteria should settle the
matter—we will hear that:

A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined once and for all
and a dogma reads as it was once defined, (p. 2).

In support of this claim, he cites Vatican I:

The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not
been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by
them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine
deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully
guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of
the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the
Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be
abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound
comprehension of the truth, (cited in Crawford, p. 2, Denz.
1800).

If it were the case that the Catholic Church’s solemn definitions
were intended, exclusively, to be “read as they were once defined,”
why does the Church, when teaching about how she should be
understood, fail to say anything of the sort? We can read it again
and again, and see no expression at all indicating what Crawford
proposes. She emphasizes instead the sense of some doctrine or
another, and her own interpretation of doctrine. And the
corresponding anathema reads:

If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the
dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must
sometimes be attributed according to the progress of
science, different from that which the Church has
understood and understands : let him be anathema [cf.
n.1800], (Denz. 1818, emphasis added).

Vatican I emphasizes the Church’s role in interpreting doctrine—
but that which “reads for itself” requires no interpretation. Vatican
I emphasizes the Church’s intended sense and understanding of
doctrine, not “the way the words read.” From this emphasis—on
understanding, sense, and interpretation—it follows that “the way
the words read” is not necessarily the way the Church interprets or
understands their sense. Indeed, even a brief perusal of any
ecumenical text will reveal pretty quickly that solemn councils

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 11

rarely provide exhaustive treatments on any particular tenet of
faith; solemn councils are only called to settle matters of disputes,
and they focus on those quite narrowly, not expansive catechetics.
And that is all the better for the Catholic learner! It means that
from one doctrine to the next, the sense of a given teaching, or the
Church’s understanding of a given teaching, is almost invariably
more expansive, illuminative, and instructive than “the way it
reads” in a vacuum.

The Catholic faith is something rich, expansive, and of
considerable scope. As St. Paul says:

0 the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the
knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his
judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33).
Or as Saint John decided to conclude his gospel:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did;
which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I
think, would not be able to contain the books that should
be written” (John 21:25).

The Catholic faith is at once simple and profound. Let’s remember
that this is the same Church to which belong the greatest and
most erudite minds to have ever lived—Aquinas, Augustine,
Bellarmine, et al— as well as the eight year old child making his
First Holy Communion, and the mild, aging grandmother quietly
praying her daily rosary.

And we should not assume that these things are
contradictory. Consider that Our Lord spoke in parables, but he
also said “let your speech be yea, yea, no, no” (Mat. 5:37). He
said “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that
believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). He said “He
that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with
me, scattereth” (Mat. 12:30) and when the apostles forbade one
who was not a follower of Him from exorcising, He rebuked them
saying “Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle
in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not
against you, is for you” (Mark 9: 38-39). If we find contradictions
where there should be none—whether in scripture or the Church’s
teaching—let us be humble and assume that we are the problem.
And then let us strive to perfect our understanding, and if that is

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 12

too much, let us simply resolve to believe what the Church
teaches, placing our mind—which is our soul—in her hands.

We say this because the present undertaking is
underscored by a variety of artificial tensions, such as the notion
that baptism cannot both be necessary and also be supplied for
through baptism of desire, or that periodic continence cannot be
lawful because it contradicts Pope Pius XI. Rather than jump to
these conclusions— conclusions not shared by the ordinary
magisterium of the Church— why not seek instead to understand
how there simply is no contradiction? When we reject the
Church’s ordinary teaching we are rejecting the means by which
apparent contradictions are resolved. It is in peacefully learning
from this proximate rule of faith—the ordinary magisterium—that
we are able to have a simple faith. On this point, allow us to quote
at length Dr. Ward (1880), an eminent Catholic author whose work
on the Church’s doctrinal authority was given papal commendation
by Pope Pius IX while Vatican I was in session, only two weeks prior
to the definition of papal infallibility:

He who holds that the Church is infallible only in her
Definitions, studies divine truth by a method which we must
maintain to be characteristically Protestant. He takes for
his principles these Definitions (as contained e.g. in
Denzinger’s small volume) and manipulates them
according to his own private views of history and logic, with
no further deference or submission to the living Church.

Now such an extravagance as this is by absolute necessity
confined to highly-educated intellects. The ordinary
believer has no more power of proceeding by such a
method, than by the more openly Protestant maxim of
private judgment on scripture... [Most Catholics] well know
that, if they would learn their religion, they must open their
heart unreservedly to the Church’s full influence; study for
their guidance those manuals and spiritual books, which
she places in their hand; listen with docility to the
instruction of her ministers [and] practise those duties
which she prescribes... Is there any one who would openly
say that there is a "royal road" to religious truth? That the
highly cultivated intellect is to seek it by a method
essentially different from that accessible to the ordinary
believer? That far less deference is due to the Church's

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 13

practical guidance from the former than from the latter? An
affirmative answer to this question is involved in the
opinion which we are combating; but such an answer is so
obviously and monstrously anti-Catholic, that no one will
venture expressly to give it (pp. 70-71, emphasis added)

With the foregoing in mind, we are content to propose that
the rhetorical notion of “simple Catholicism” consisting in a
reliance only on solemn texts is rendered dubious (at the very
least). We must—obviously—care about truth, whether it is simple
or otherwise. Let us not allow our affection for what is simple
supplant our affection for what is true (although we would hardly
go as far as to say that the two contend with each other).

Concluding Thoughts

As we begin to conclude this chapter, we must note that
Reverend Crawford does claim that:

We are not strictly obliged to believe only in the Dogmas of
the Church because not everything has been defined as a
Catholic Dogma, this is obvious (p. 2, emphasis added).

By “dogmas of the Church” we understand him to mean that which
is solemnly defined (this seems obvious, given what he says
elsewhere). But he rejects all of the reasons we’ve put forward
supporting the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, and we
cannot help but wonder what reasons—and at that, “obvious”
ones, as he calls them—are left for believing anything that isn’t
solemnly defined. No doubt it is to the comfort of the average
Catholic to assent to universally taught and believed (but never
defined) doctrines such as Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, or the
sainthoods of Ss. Peter, Paul, Joseph, and all the rest who were
canonized before the Middle Ages 5 . But mere comfort and
familiarity with an idea isn’t a good enough reason to believe it.

The uncomfortable fact that Crawford and those who commit to his
rule of faith will need to grapple with is that the vast majority of
what they believe enjoys no solemn approval from the Church.

That means, in principle, those beliefs can be wrong. Reverend
Crawford says such beliefs don’t contradict solemn teaching. That

5 The first thousand or so years of canonizations all came about through organic,
popular acclaim; there are no “solemn decrees” canonizing any of the apostles. Church
Fathers, or any other saints before the middle ages.

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 14

is of course true, but only for now. Until such doctrines are
solemnly defined, by what principle can Crawford say that they are
unassailably true? We have given all of our reasons, what are his?

Sadly, it seems that the only purpose served by Crawford’s
admittance that non-solemn teaching can be believed is to keep
the door open for a few select non-solemn texts he thinks support
his argument. He is certainly quick to close that door at the
slightest hint of anything that challenges his position. Hopefully he
will keep it open long enough for the splendor of the Church’s
ordinary teaching to shine through. That is true comfort to
Catholic belief.

Summary

• We have explained that infallibility is not merely a constant
correctness, but a true and proper protection from God’s
divine providence preventing even the possibility of error;
and we have shown that with this understanding of
infallibility, it makes no sense to speak of the ordinary
magisterium as infallible “only when” it affirms some other
infallible teaching.

• We have gone to doctors of the Church to show how the
Church’s infallibility in her universal ordinary teaching is
something that’s been recognized, without qualification,
since the beginning of the Church; these same doctors
along with later theologians explain that doctrines taught by
ordinary teaching are infallible if they are ever (not always)
universally held.

• We have also witnessed solemn texts that have justified
their definitions on the very grounds that they (the
definitions) affirm ordinary teaching.

• We have shown that the infallibility of the ordinary
magisterium in no way detracts from papal infallibility but in
fact proceeds from it; and further, that the infallibility of the
ordinary magisterium has nothing at all to do with raw
numbers but the requirements of an indefectible Church,
which, to be indefectible, must have a persistent proximate
rule of infallible faith.

• We have addressed Crawford’s contention that the Catholic
faith is “simple” because it can be known from solemn

Contra Crawford, Chapter One: On Catholic Learning 15

pronouncements “as they read” by pointing to the very
same quotes he uses from Vatican I and noticing that the
Church emphasizes understanding and the sense of
doctrine—not “literal words,” “simple meanings,” or
anything of the sort.

• We have turned to scripture to show that if one is looking
for contradictions they will find them, and we proposed
instead that one turn to the Church, especially her ordinary
magisterium, if one truly wishes to be a simple Catholic of
upright belief.

As we noted in our preface, there is arguably nothing more
important to this work than the rule of faith. For, even if someone
manages to believe one doctrine—or even all doctrines—if their
rule of faith is faulty, it is only a matter of time before they fall into
error again. We must not only believe what is right, but we must
believe rightly. With that said, we can now proceed with our
commentary and criticism of Reverend Crawford’s main
arguments.

Chapter Two: On Justification

Introduction

At bottom, it is the state of justification which is necessary
to enter Heaven. Justification includes and presupposes all the
necessary individual components which are required for salvation.
To be justified is nothing other than to be in the state of sanctifying
grace. Of course, a person who is in the state of sanctifying grace
now might sadly lose that state, and may die outside of it—in which
case they are infallibly reprobate. But, as all Catholics know, to die
in the state of sanctifying grace—i.e., to die justified —is to go to
Heaven. We agree with Reverend Crawford that only those who
die justified will reach Heaven. The point of disagreement is how
one can be justified.

In this chapter we will refute Reverend Crawford’s
arguments about justification and baptism of desire. We believe
the ordinary magisterium’s teaching on baptism 6 is perfectly clear
and therefore definitive on the matter so we will not avoid such
texts when arguing against him, but we will also use Trent itself to
reveal that his position is gravely mistaken. In addition to
overcoming his arguments, we will develop our own arguments
and show that baptism of desire is not only taught by the ordinary
magisterium, but by Trent itself.

Summary and Evolution of Reverend Crawford’s Position

There is probably no greater change in Crawford’s position
than the change his views on justification underwent between the
publication of his 2017 replies and the publication of his 2018
booklet. In his 2017 replies, Crawford carried on in the tradition of
Fr. Leonard Feeney and Fr. James Wathen, arguing that

A soul can be justified before the actual reception of the
sacrament [he cites St. Paul and Cornelius as examples]...
[But] They still must persevere, and receive baptism [to be
saved], (p. 4)

To support this belief, he argued that:

6 It will not be our method to merely multiply texts from the ordinary magisterium to
prove this point; such compilations already exist (e.g. Christopher Conlon’s (2014) Sources
of Baptism of Blood and Desire, or Fr. Anthony Cekada’s (2000) Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles). Besides, we do not think that Reverend Crawford nor those who
disagree with us deny that it is taught by the ordinary magisterium, rather they deny that it
being taught by the ordinary magisterium has any significance.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 18

Council of Trent taught that one could receive the grace of
justification before receiving the sacrament of baptism.
[Trent] then states that one still needs Baptism for
salvation, (p. 5, emphasis retained)

But he no longer believes that justification can be had prior to
Baptism. In his (2018) Untitled Booklet, he argues instead that:
You cannot first receive justification without the Sacrament
of Baptism. No one is first justified without Faith, Flope,
and Charity, and no one receives Faith, Flope, and Charity
without the Sacrament of Baptism, (p. 14)

Fie continually repeats that one cannot be justified without water
baptism throughout his Untitled Booklet.

We think that if a man comes to the conclusion that he has
believed wrongly, he should abandon what is wrong and cling to
what is true. So in principle, we certainly don’t object to the mere
fact that Reverend Crawford has changed his argument. But we
do object to him writing his Untitled Booklet as though the ideas
contained in it were what he believed all along. Especially since
many of the questions put to him by Bishop Pivarunas directly
engaged his prior argument that dying justified was not enough to
be saved (Appendix A, Q’s 5, 6, 8, & 11). Given the public nature
of the discussion, it would have been more fitting for Crawford to
acknowledge that his opinion had changed.

Not only does Reverend Crawford not acknowledge this
change of position, he opts for an impatient tone when replying to
questions aimed at challenging his previous views (Q’s. 6, 8, & 11
Appendix A). Fie uses expressions like “Once again, you cannot
first be justified without having received the sacrament of
Baptism,” and “For the third time, we cannot receive God’s life in
our soul without having first received the sacrament of baptism,”
and finally “There is no need to continue and distinguish between
justification and salvation” (pp. 17, 19, & 22, emphases added).
But the only reason those distinctions were made by Bishop
Pivarunas was because Crawford introduced them when writing
his 2017 replies. So we don’t think it’s particularly just for
Reverend Crawford to act as though his “real” argument has gone
ignored or talked over—his argument against baptism of desire in
the Untitled Booklet is new.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 19

Of course, these observations of ours do not bear on the actual
merits of his argument. But since we are entering into the sphere
of the discussion, we would like to communicate what we believe
is a better standard of decorum.

To bring this introduction to a close and recap Crawford’s
views: his previous contention was that Trent taught baptism of
desire justified, but that one who died justified without water
baptism would still be reprobate. His reading of Trent has
changed, and his current position is that justification consists in
faith, hope, and charity—which can only be received by water
baptism. Justification, therefore, is something that may only and
exclusively be enjoyed by those who have received water baptism.
Only those who received water baptism and persevered in the
state of justification it (and only it) provides—will be saved.

On the Necessity of Faith, Hope, and Charity

We absolutely agree that faith, hope, and charity—the
possession of all three being no different than the existence of
God’s life in a person’s soul, i.e., sanctifying grace—are absolutely,
unequivocally, and unexceptionally necessary for salvation.
However, these three most certainly can be had prior to baptism.

Faith (and Hope and Charity) does not only Begin with Baptism

The development of all theological virtue begins with the
virtue of faith, which lends to and is the prerequisite for hope and
charity. Charity in particular is considered the greatest of all
theological virtues, because only through charity do faith or hope
mean anything to God. As Saint Paul wrote, “If I should have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2) and Saint James “For even as the body
without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead”
(James 2:26). Fr. Flynn (1948) explains it well:

Charity is the “form” of all virtues. That means that no
virtue has its full perfection as a supernatural virtue unless
it is, by association with charity, directed to the last end...
faith and hope can be present without charity; but then we
speak of them as “dead.” (cited in Smith, Vol. I, p. 639)
While we say that charity is “the greatest” of all virtues, it’s not the
first of the virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas (-1265) argued that

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 20

“faith, by its very nature, precedes all other virtues” because faith
is of the intellect, and charity (which pertains to the will) obviously
cannot animate faith unless it is known. (ST II, II, Q. 4, a. 7). Put
another way by Fr. Otten (1918):

Faith alone does not justify, but it is the indispensable
beginning, basis, and root of justification. If not
accompanied by hope and charity, it is profitless and dead
(p. 471).

To be sure, we could indefinitely multiply authors who teach this.

It is as certain as any Catholic teaching, and was explicated from
the very beginning of Catholic belief. All three virtues are required
for salvation; charity is the greatest of these, but faith is the first of
these.

So if charity is the greatest of all virtues and we cannot
have it without faith, the question naturally arises: “how do we
‘get’ faith?” The Council of Trent tells us:

Now they are disposed to [justification] when aroused and
aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are
freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which
has been divinely revealed and promised. (Denz. 798,
emphasis added)

Note the context: Trent is describing the Catechumen’s faith.

Trent footnotes Romans 10:17 on this point, which is where St.
Paul says “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word
of Christ.” We invite the reader to consult the entire chapter of St.
Paul’s epistle—there is not a single mention of nor reference to
baptism. Faith comes from hearing, not just from baptism.

Supernatural and Natural Faith

Reverend Crawford does attempt to explain what “faith by
hearing” refers to. Fie argues that the faith received by hearing is
merely a natural faith (p. 14). We can’t imagine where he gets
that idea. As we just saw, Trent itself tells us that this faith
includes “believing that to be true which has been divinely
revealed and promised" (Denz. 798). All you need to do is finish
reading the sentence and any question about the type of faith
Trent is discussing will be resolved. And in case any doubts still
linger, we can compare Trent’s description of the catechumens’
faith to Vatican I’s definition of supernatural faith:

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 21

Trent’s Description of a
Catechumen’s Faith

Vatican I’s definition of
Supernatural Faith

Now they are disposed to that
justice when, aroused and
assisted by divine grace,
receiving faith "by hearing"

[Rom. 10:17], they are freely
moved toward God, believing
that to be true which has been
divinely revealed and promised
(Denz. 798).

[Faith] is a supernatural virtue
by which we, with the aid and
inspiration of the grace of God,
believe that the things
revealed by Him are true
(Denz. 1789).

Trent says that the faith of the catechumens happens when
they are aroused and assisted by divine Grace and when they
believe that to be true which has been divinely revealed by God.
Even without comparing this description to Vatican I (and finding
the two to be virtually identical), it is self-evidently not describing
merely natural faith. Only by changing the very definition of faith
can such an idea be maintained. 7

The full Tridentine teaching presents a lucid picture of how
justification can occur in the catechumen before receiving
baptism. The Council of Trent taught that faith is when man
believes “that to be true which has been divinely revealed and
promised”, and from which faith comes a realization of one’s
sinfulness and the virtue of hope, “trusting that God will be
merciful to them for the sake of Christ,” and such hope lends to
charity, as the sinner begins:

7 Furthermore, remember that faith is distinguished by its object (i.e., by the thing
it’s directed toward or “placed in’’). To quote one of any number of explanations,
Wilhelm and Scanned (1909) explain that “[Theological faith] is also termed Divine
Faith, in opposition to human faith—that is, faith founded on the authority of man;
[and it is also called] Supernatural Faith, because it leads to supernatural salvation
and has God for its author and Generator” (p. 115). So, faith in something
supernatural is, by definition, supernatural faith—we suspect that most of our
readers already know this, even if not in these terms. When we hear that someone
has “faith” in their favorite athlete, sports team, company, parent, etc. we know that
they’re talking about a natural faith because the thing faith is placed in is natural; on
the other hand and when faith is discussed in relation to God or revelation (as it is at
Trent in reference to the catechumen), we know that what’s being discussed is
supernatural faith because faith is being placed in something supernatural.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 22

To love [H]im as the source of all justice and [the sinner is]
therefore moved against sin... by that repentance which
must be performed before baptism; and finally when they
resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep
the commandments of God (Denz. 798 emphasis added).
Faith comes from hearing, then hope, and finally charity,
culminating in a resolve for baptism. In this way all three virtues
may be received prior to actual baptism.

The “Sacrament of Faith”

Reverend Crawford also argues that catechumens cannot
be justified prior to baptism because Trent taught that:

The instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of
baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no
one is ever justified. (Denz. 799).

Reverend Crawford takes this to mean that no one has ever been
justified without baptism. Protestant cleric Charles Mcllvaine read
it the same way and Bishop Kenrick (1841) offered the following
rebuttal which we will adopt as our own:

Were the decrees of the Council before him when he made
this quotation, it would be impossible to excuse him from
the disgrace of having mutilated and corrupted the text, to
suit his purpose: but of this I willingly acquit him, being
persuaded that he took the quotation at second hand. The
text runs thus: "Instrumental item, sacramentum baptismi,
quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli unquam contigit
justification "The sacrament of Baptism, which is the
sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no one ever was
justified, is the instrumental cause." The necessity of faith
in adults is declared, in conformity with the teaching of the
Apostle, that “without faith it is impossible to please
God." No mention whatsoever of the necessity of Baptism
is made in this passage; and yet Bishop M'llvaine makes it
the foundation of an argument to which he frequently
reverts! (pp. 132-33)

We’re sure that Reverend Crawford would be the first to point out
that there is only one baptism and there are only seven
sacraments, so the expression “sacrament of faith” isn’t literally
baptism. It is rich, theological language meant to indicate
baptism’s effects, especially faith. As bishop Kenrick explained to

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 23

the protestant minister, it is faith (rather than baptism) without
which no man was ever justified.

So why is baptism called “the sacrament of faith” if faith
(and even hope and charity) may be acquired prior to it? The
Catechism of Trent explains that

The holy Fathers designate [baptism] also by other names.
St. Augustine informs us that it was sometimes called the
Sacrament of Faith because by receiving it we profess our
faith in all the doctrines of Christianity (p. 110).

Saint Thomas likewise says it is called so because it is a type of
profession of faith (ST III, Q. 66, a. 1). Nowhere in the Council, its
catechism, nor in any other author—except Reverend Crawford—is
it contended that baptism is called “the sacrament of faith”
because it is the only way by which one can first receive faith.

Does Sin Remain?

We might anticipate a rebuttal along these lines: that while
faith, hope, and charity may be present in the catechumen, the
catechumen is still with original sin, and as all know (and we of
course agree), all who die with original sin on their souls are
damned. Therefore, while the catechumen may have the three
theological virtues, the catechumen is still not justified until their
sins are remitted in baptism.

But like all evils, original sin is the absence of a thing, not a
thing unto itself. As Aquinas said, “Privation of original justice is
original sin” since in original sin

The gift of original justice is taken away entirely; and
privations that remove something entirely, such as death
and darkness, cannot be more or less. (ST I, II, Q. 82, aa. 4-
5)

This notion of sin as a lack, or a privation, is echoed from “bottom
to top” in the Church’s teaching, as we see it also in Ott’s (1955)
popular manual: “In each act of human generation is
communicated a condition deprived of grace” (§22, 2, p. 111).

And Dr. Ott is merely repeating Trent’s solemn affirmation of
Aquinas’s teaching:

If anyone asserts that...the sanctity and justice, received [by
Adam] from God, which he lost... has transfused only death
"and the punishments of the body into the whole human

24

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification

race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul," let
him be anathema. (Denz. 789)

Original sin is defined as the death of the soul, and the death of
the soul is the absence of God’s life in it. Original sin consists
formally in a lack of grace and virtue—not a positive “presence” of
sin.

That being the case, when we speak of original sin being
removed, we are not speaking as if we are removing something
that is “in our way”—the removal of original sin is not like moving a
heap of rubble blocking a door way, instead it is like removing
darkness in a room by hitting the light switch. Nothing else is
required for the “removal” of a privation other than the
introduction of that which was lacking. So if someone has the
three theological virtues (which is just another way of saying that
someone is in the state of sanctifying grace 8 ), then nothing else
needs to be done to remove original sin.

This is a truth also reflected by Pope St. Pius V’s (1567)
condemnations of Michael du Bay. These condemnations were
issued less than five years after the conclusion of Trent. Among
them included this condemned teaching:

[Condemned Proposition of Michael du Bay, no. 31] Perfect
and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good
conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in
catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission
of sins 9 . (Denz. 1031)

There is a plain incompatibility between the theological virtues and
sin. Someone who has perfect charity (which by definition
includes supernatural faith and hope) is, by definition, not in sin.
So when Crawford argues absolutely that:

8 While we can distinguish between the three theological virtues and sanctifying grace,
the virtues and sanctifying grace are not separable ; Trent itself clarifies this, and since Trent,
theologians have sometimes called the three theological virtues “the concomitants of
sanctifying grace” as a way to describe how they invariably follow from it (Pohle 1909, Sec
8; Pohle 1917, pp. 362-66; cf Denz. 800).

9 This is not the first time Pope St. Pius V’s condemnations have been presented to
Reverend Crawford; Bishop Pivarunas (Appendix A, Q5) asked him to explain how his
doctrine can be squared with Pius V’s teaching but in his Untitled Booklet Reverend
Crawford omitted the quotes from his transcription and did not address the question (2018, p.
14).

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 25

Without the sacrament of baptism original sin cannot be
removed and we cannot initially have remission of sins or
sanctifying grace (p. 17),

We can summarily dismiss him.

“Infused Virtues”

One might also wonder why baptism would bother infusing
these theological virtues if they can be possessed by the
catechumen prior to his actual baptism. The answer consists in
remembering that grace and the theological virtues are not static.
While a man may be said to either have or not have them, it would
be untrue to say that all men who have them have them in the
same “amount.” Allow us to quote Trent at length:

Having, therefore, been thus justified and having been
made the "friends of God" and "his domestics" [John 15:15;
Eph. 2:19], "advancing from virtue to virtue" [Ps. 83:8],

"they are renewed" (as the Apostle says) "from day to day"

[2 Cor. 4:16], that is, by mortifying the members of their
flesh [Col. 3:5], and by "presenting them as instruments of
justice" [Rom. 6:13, 19], unto sanctification through the
observance of the commandments of God and of the
Church; in this justice received through the grace of Christ
"faith cooperating with good works" [Jas. 2:22], they
increase and are further justified [can. 24 and 32], as it is
written: "He that is just, let him be justified still" [Rev.
22:11], and again: "Be not afraid to be justified even to
death" [Sirach. 18:22], and again: "You see, that by works a
man is justified and not by faith only" [Jas. 2:24], And this
increase of justice Holy Church begs for, when she prays:
"Give unto us, 0 Lord, an increase of faith, hope and
charity" [13th Sun. after Pent.]. (Denz. 803).

Growing in faith, hope, and charity are a central and indispensable
part of every-day, ordinary Catholic life. We pray three Hail Mary’s
for an increase of them at the beginning of every rosary. We recite
acts of faith, hope, and charity every morning, asking God to help
us grow in them. The Collects and other propers of the Mass, as
the Council points out, often seek God’s help through an increase
of the same. This is a very rich and powerful teaching display from
the Council which wonderfully describes the continued justification
of man through the sublime mystery of God’s grace and man’s
cooperation.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification

26

Several condemnations from Trent correspond with this
teaching about continuous growth in the theological virtues (Denz.
834 & 842). These condemnations are all opposed to the
Protestant error that “grace is grace”, condemning the idea that
anyone who has it has no more or less, nor could have more or
less, than anyone else who has it.

True enough, it makes no sense for baptism to infuse
graces that might already have been possessed if we think of
grace as static and binary like the Protestants do. But since we all
grow in grace— according both to God’s mercy and our own
works—it is only fitting that baptism, which initiates one as a
member of the Church and entitles one to the ordinary means of
sanctification (i.e., the sacraments), would infuse all three of the
theological virtues.

Baptism as the “Cause” of Justification

A fair amount of argumentation was also made by
Reverend Crawford in relation to baptism as the cause of
justification (pp. 22-4). In these arguments it seems manifest that
Crawford’s mistakes are driven by a general ignorance of
scholastic philosophy 10 . This is the philosophy developed by St.
Thomas Aquinas and adopted by the Church as her own. Pope St.
Pius X (1914) described the utter incompetence that follows when
this philosophy is disregarded:

The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not
to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being
debated one way or another, but are to be considered as
the foundations upon which the whole science of natural
and divine things is based; if such principles are once
removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow
that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to
perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the
dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy
of the Church. (Doctoris Angelici, §3, emphasis added)

And in no place is it clearer that Reverend Crawford’s arguments
have failed to “perceive so much as the meaning of the words in

10 Other names for this system of thought include Scholasticism, Thomism, Scholastic
Metaphysics, Aristotelian-Thomist Metaphysics, etc.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 27

which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed” than when he
attempts to explain baptism as the “cause” of justification. If we
wish to properly understand the sense of what’s happening in
Trent, we must be sensitive to and appreciable of the fact that it is
not using colloquial language but language proper to the
scholastic lexicon, and words with precise meanings which
presuppose a familiarity with this philosophical background.

Trent’s application of the Four Causes to the Catholic doctrine of
justification are as great an example of this philosophical tradition
as any.

Reverend Crawford manages to initially quote Trent
correctly when it calls baptism the instrumental cause of
justification, but then he drops this very important adjective
(“instrumental”) and goes on to simply speak of baptism as “the
cause” of justification (pp. 22-24). One might even blush on his
behalf as he challenges Bishop Pivarunas:

“FIRST, define your definition for the terms “cause” and
“cannot be effected” (p. 22, emphasis and CAPS retained)
Such a statement betrays an obliviousness over the terms the
Council is using. Trent ascribes several causes to justification,
each derived from the Aristotelian-Thomist system of causality.

The final cause (i.e., the purpose for which justification exists) is
“the glory of God and of Christ and life eternal”, and the efficient
cause (i.e., the person or agent who moves man toward
justification) is “a truly and merciful God who gratuitously ‘washes
and sanctifies”' (Denz. 799). Now, instrumental causes (which is
what Trent calls baptism) are a sub-distinction among efficient
causes. Since these are St. Thomas’s distinctions, it is only fitting
to allow him to explain:

An efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental.
The principal cause works by the power of its form, to which
form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes
something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace:
since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of
the Divine Nature... But the instrumental cause works not
by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it
is moved by the principal agent {ST, III, Q. 62, a. 1,
emphasis added).

Aquinas then continues, applying this distinction to the
communication of grace through the sacraments:

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 28

Christ delivered us from our sins principally through His
Passion, not only by way of efficiency and merit, but also by
way of satisfaction. Wherefore it is manifest that the
sacraments of the Church derive their power specially from
Christ's Passion, the virtue of which is in a manner united to
us by our receiving the sacraments, (ibid., a. 5, emphasis
added)

From which he concludes:

As stated above (111:62:5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy
from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by
Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now
although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause
far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it.
Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water,
receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so
far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him...In like
manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power
of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but
also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is
moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to
repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of
Repentance [i.e., of desire],..Thus, therefore, each of these
other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the
place of Baptism. (ST, III, Q. 66, a. 11, emphasis added).

So an instrumental cause is an instrument by which a cause is
effected. And instruments, unlike principals (who/which are
metaphysically indispensable for bringing about an effect), are
substitutable. Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament, but it can and
does substitute for baptism of water inasmuch as it consists in
baptism’s justifying effects of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

Readers may understandably be frustrated by a
philosophical foray into scholastic terminology. Let us recall a
point then, which we’re sure everyone knows, but which might
have been forgotten. The Council of Trent, like all other
ecumenical councils, had an audience of bishops. So it used
language and terminology commensurate to the experience and
knowledge of its audience. And it certainly did not pause at any
point to explain its language to an audience for which the
documents were never intended. When Trent concluded, the
bishops disseminated a catechism and incorporated the Council’s

29

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification

teachings into other ordinary means of teaching. They did not
return from Trent with copies of the original documents—precisely
because the Council’s teachings weren’t worded in “plain
language.” On the contrary, a proper understanding of some of
these teachings even in English requires at the bare minimum, a
familiarity with Aristotelian-Thomistic jargon. As we saw Dr. Ward
say in the previous chapter, learning from the solemn texts alone
is a fundamentally intellectually advanced strategy, the exact
opposite of simple.

Desire=lntent?

Moving on from Trent’s revered scholasticism, our next
consideration is over Reverend Crawford’s attempt to explain the
meaning of the word “desire.” Since he no longer believes that
baptism of desire justifies, he has to explain just exactly what the
Council means when it taught that:

After the promulgation of the Gospel [Justification] cannot
be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a
desire for it, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God" [John 3:5] (Denz. 796, emphasis added)

Crawford explains: “In other words, if an adult is baptized but does
not desire to be baptized, then justification will not be effected in
their soul” (p. 19). Now, it’s certainly true that if someone doesn’t
want to be baptized (but is baptized anyways), the defect in their
intention impedes the full effects of the sacrament (this is true of
all sacraments). But this is not what the Council meant when it
mentioned desire.

And Reverend Crawford should know that. In his 2017
Replies, he spent some time arguing that the Latin word Trent
uses for desire is “voto,” which Crawford argued translated better
to “vow” than “desire”. (2017 Replies, pp. 5 ff). Since he has
abandoned that position we’ll hardly engage his prior point, except
to say that voto indicates desire in the relevant sense: i.e., a true
and proper turning away from sin, motivated by perfect charity
along with faith and hope—contrary to a simple passing “desire”,
like one might have for ice-cream 11 or chicken wings. Now, if Trent

©

11 Although pregnant women may indeed have a desire for ice cream in the voto sense

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 30

simply meant to say that baptism will not justify if it is received
contrary to one’s intention, then Trent would have used
intentionem (rather than voto), just as it does everywhere else it
discusses intention specifically. And Crawford knows the Latin, or
at least he’s acted like he did in the past, so he should know that.

Furthermore, Trent uses the word voto to teach that that
sacramental confession at least in desire may restore a sinner
who has fallen after baptism. This is the foundation of the
doctrine of perfect contrition 12 :

[Restoration to justice after baptism includes] sacramental
confession of those sins, at least in desire [voto]... [and]

The eternal punishment... is remitted together with the guilt
either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament
(Denz. 807; of. Q’s 3&4 Appendix A).

If voto means what Reverend Crawford thinks it means, then the
“desire” for penance described by Trent means actually going to
confession while actually meaning t o go to confession. And that’s
just silly. So unless he is ready to abandon the doctrine of perfect
contrition too, he’ll have to admit that voto means more than
merely receiving a sacrament willingly.

But our argument hardly depends on the original Latin. All
of the received and approved translations of Trent render voto as
the English word “desire” and we would contend that the Church’s
translations to the vernacular are perfectly safe. More to the
point, Trent doesn’t just obliquely mention a desire for baptism
and then leave us on our own to guess what that means. It
mentions that desire for baptism can justify, and then almost
immediately ensues with a description of catechumens who are
justified when they “resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life
and to keep the commandments of God" (Denz. 798). Even if we
had no knowledge of the Latin at all, the context makes it
abundantly clear what desire for baptism means.

12 I.e., the teaching that if a Catholic in mortal sin makes a perfect act of charity he is
restored to justice before receiving absolution in sacramental confession, and that were he to
die before the opportunity to confess, he would be saved

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 31

It means perfect charity, which is what all Catholic Fathers,

Doctors, and Theologians have always admitted justifies. To take
one of the more notable examples, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1748):
Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition
or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit
or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of
which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the
impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the
removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind"
["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the
Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide
that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of
the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato 13 "
and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is
said that no one can be saved "without the laver of
regeneration or the desire for it. (trans. Daly, Bk. VI, §95).
Notice that St. Alphonsus, whose work Pope Gregory XVI (1839)
declared could be read “without the least fear of finding the
smallest error” (Bull of Canonization, cited in Liguori, 1854, p.

584, §7), justifies his explanation by citing the very passage of
Trent under contention. Given that, and given all of our other
considerations in this section, we can hardly find any reason why
Reverend Crawford’s contention that “desire=intent” should be
taken seriously.

Catechumens and the Catholic Church

At this point, the only thing left to do is to consider the
relationship between a justified catechumen and the Catholic
Church. By this point we’ve already proved that catechumens can
be justified. Are we to suppose that someone can be justified and
not be in the Church? We would posit that at this point in the
work, the question isn’t “are catechumens in the Church?” but
rather, “how are catechumens in the Church?” If justification
consists in all that is necessary for salvation, and if being in the

13 Pope Innocent II’s (~1140) “de presbyto non baptizto” (Denz. 388) teaches “on the
authority of the Holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose” that baptism of desire may save. It is
sometimes implied by those who deny baptism of desire that this teaching of Pope Innocent’s
is of questionable legitimacy, or that Karl Rahner added it to Denzinger in the fifties. As we
can see, it was known well to St. Alphonsus a hundred years before Denzinger existed.
Moreover, it is found in Denzinger’s very first (1854) edition as well as subsequent editions
(e.g. 1910 11 th ed.) which were never touched by Rahner.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 32

Church is necessary for salvation, then justification can hardly be
had outside the Church, can it?

Reverend Crawford’s argument that Catechumens are
outside the Church is based primarily on the fact that they are not
baptized. He says that

the Council [of Trent] defined that no one can be justified
without the sacrament of faith, which is the sacrament of
baptism, because through baptism, supernatural faith,
hope, and charity are infused into a soul, thereby making a
soul justified and uniting it perfectly with Christ as a
member of the Church, (p. 13)

As we’ve just seen, the Council does not at all teach that
supernatural faith, hope, and charity are only had (or had first)
with baptism. And Trent certainly doesn’t teach that one becomes
a member because of the three theological virtues, either.

Membership in the Catholic Church is a concept which has
undergone considerable development and explication since St.
Robert Bellarmine. A somewhat longstanding dispute between
theologians regarding the conditions for membership was all but
settled with Pope Pius Xll’s (1943) Mystici Corporis Christi :

Only those are to be numbered among the members of the
Church who have received the laver of regeneration and
profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune,
separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for
very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful
authority (Denz. 2286).

There are two positive conditions, and one negative: to be a
member of the Church one must be baptized, one must profess
the faith, and one must not be separated from the structure of the
body. The longstanding dispute settled here was over whether or
not the theological virtues were required for membership. In truth,
the dispute was hardly all that contentious since Bellarmine’s
doctrine (which held that profession of faith, not
interior/supernatural faith, was what counted for membership)
had long since been the preferred explanation of ecclesiologists,
and only a minority of theologians continued to insist that
supernatural faith or any other virtue was required. Nevertheless,
Pope Pius’s enumeration of membership’s conditions render it

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 33

clear that theological virtues are not among the conditions for
membership.

Now, the pope does not go into great detail as to why one
doesn’t need supernatural faith to be a member of the Church, but
we have answers—mainly from St. Robert Bellarmine, who
explained that:

If those who lack internal faith are not, nor can be, in the
Church, there will be no further question between us and
the heretics on the visibility of the Church, hence, so many
disputations of the most erudite men will be redundant,
which to this point have been brought forth. All who have
written to this point object to the Lutherans and Calvinists
because they make the Church invisible, (p. 297).

St. Robert’s annoyance is directed at other Catholic authors of the
time who were arguing that supernatural faith was required for
membership in the Catholic Church. His annoyance is owed to the
fact that he and his companion counter-reformationists—Ss.

Francis de Sales, Peter Canisius, Charles Borromeo, et al—went to
great lengths sparring with the protestants who all conditioned
membership on some /'nvisible thing or another (faith, justification,
election, etc.), and the learned doctor rightly pointed out that a
Church whose membership was conditioned on anything /'nvisible
(such as supernatural faith) was a Church that was invisible. Thus,
St. Robert says that if we’re going to make internal faith a
condition for membership, there’s no point in continuing to
distinguish between us and the Protestants.

Membership Pertains to the External

As Bellarmine reasoned, if the Catholic Church was to be a
visible institution, then membership in this institution could not be
conditioned on anything /'nvisible. So he concluded that

The form of the Church is not internal faith (unless we
mean to have an invisible Church), but external faith, i.e.
the confession of faith, (p. 300)

And of course this only makes perfect sense. So Bellarmine’s
conclusion—that since the Church is visible, membership must be
a matter of externals rather than internals —became not just a
standardized argument against the reformers, but also the
boilerplate ecclesiological model for all theologians who came
after him. And we can see Bellarmine’s doctrine favored by Pope

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 34

Pius XII when he teaches that membership is conditioned on
whether someone a) is baptized (a visible initiation), b) professes
the faith (a visible habit), and c) hasn’t been excluded from the
“structure of the body” by heresy, schism, apostasy, or
excommunication, all of which are visible, public facts.

Begging the reader’s patience: this point—about
membership and the visibility of the Church—is important not just
to correct Reverend Crawford’s mistakes on the conditions for
membership, but to properly set the stage of what it means to be a
member of the Catholic Church. Being a member is not
synonymous with “being in” the Church; membership is a technical
status which describes something external. The Church’s doctrine
is “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sal us" (EENS)—outside the Church, there
is no salvation. Not, “outside Church membership there is no
salvation.”

The reader may be incredulous. After all, Reverend
Crawford claims at the very beginning of his Untitled Booklet that
“a person must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved”
(p. 1, emphasis added). He then gives eighteen quotes to prove
the point. But only a third of these even include the word
“member,” and each of those only says that baptism is a
requirement for membership, not that membership is a
requirement for salvation. Of the remaining quotes he provides,
none even mention membership at all. Reverend Crawford has
clearly conflated “being a member of” with “being in” the
Church 14 .

A Terminological (not Doctrinal) Dispute

So how is it that catechumens are in the Church? One way
that some authors attempted to describe this was by appealing to
“membership in/of the soul of the Church,” while others
contended that such an explanation was wholly unsatisfactory (e.g.

14 Crawford also bookends his Untitled Booklet with the assertion that one must be
“marked as Catholic” to be saved (pp. 1, 3, 55, 56). We say “asserts” rather than “argues”
because despite the frequency of the claim he never even attempts to develop an argument to
prove it. Now, one might argue along with Mgr. Fenton (1950) that the indelible mark is
necessary for membership , and that seems a decent argument, at least the way that Fenton
makes it. But Crawford doesn’t even try, and even if he did, he’s focusing on the wrong
thing. He’s supposed to be proving is that membership is necessary for salvation.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 35

Fenton 15 , 1944). Later, Fenton (1958) would argue that among
the various known expressions, “member in voto” (i.e., member in
desire) is the preferred expression for describing a catechumen’s
relationship to the Church because “member in voto” was the
expression used in Pope Pius Xll’s Suprema Haec letter. Fr.
Sebastiaan Tromp who drafted and ghost-wrote Mystici Corporis
Christi draws our attention to the fact that this distinction is
supported by the encyclical itself:

Take notice of the word reapse placed in the beginning of
the paragraph [where the conditions for membership are
defined]; this passage is concerned with those who pertain
to the Church really [re]... [But paragraph 101 discusses]
those who are joined to the Church only in desire [voto] and
are indeed related to the Body of Christ [despite being]
deprived of the many divine aids which are found only in
the true Church (Cited in King 1959, pp. 254-55).

And we can hardly be surprised that Mystici Corporis identifies this
distinction. It was a distinction made by Bellarmine, whose
doctrine pervades Pope Pius Xll’s encyclical. Bellarmine explained
that:

It is said outside the Church no man is saved, and this
ought to be understood on those who are neither in fact nor
in desire within the Church, just as all the Theologians
commonly teach on Baptism 16 (p. 241, emphasis added).

15 Readers may be confused to hear that Fenton was an opponent of this theory since
Reverend Crawford intimated in a 2017 public presentation that “Fenton’s theory” was a
theory about catechumens belonging to the soul of the Church. And although he doesn’t
mention Fenton specifically in his Untitled Booklet, Crawford does briefly claim that one
cannot be “invisibly ‘attached’” to the soul of the Church (p. 24). Now, “The soul of the
Church” was an expression Bellarmine used (and he attributed it to Saint Augustine). The
Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church (Pope Leo XIII, Divinum Illud) and to speak of “the
soul of the Church” or even a certain relationship to the Church’s soul is not, of itself,
problematic. What is problematic, as Fenton argued, is to speak of the soul of the Church as
a discrete and distinct societ\’ of the justified, which is the implication when someone
describes a “ member of the soul of the Church.” That implication is simply false, since as
Fenton put it “the men and women in whom the Holy Ghost dwells through sanctifying grace
do not constitute any social organization by themselves in this world” (p. 52). Now, these
considerations do not bear directly on the matter at hand, but are mentioned briefly as a way
of introducing some context and background regarding the different uses and formulations of
the expression “soul of the Church,” since Reverend Crawford’s oblique references to it are
very superficial and suggest that he’s probably just repeating things he’s heard secondhand.

16 Notice that Bellarmine who is writing as a contemporary of the Council of Trent
witnesses that baptism of desire is the universal teaching of the Church at that time

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 36

Surveying this material shows us that whether or not
Catechumens can be in the Church is not something that has ever
been disputed. This much is reflected over centuries of Catholic
teaching. The only question legitimately debated was a very
different one, and that’s the question over how best to describe
that Catechumens are in the Church.

In concluding our remarks on membership and
catechumens, let’s quickly return to the remarks with which we
initiated this discussion. Unless one wishes to argue that
justification occurs outside the Catholic Church—and we suspect
that our interlocutors are in large part motivated to argue as they
do precisely because they deny that justification can happen
outside the Catholic Church—then it is only obvious that the
justified Catechumen is indeed in the Church. The Council of Trent
shows how faith, hope, and charity, the formal cause of which is
sanctifying grace, may be acquired by the catechumen before
Baptism. Are we to suppose, then, that sanctifying grace is
something possessed by those who are altogether outside the
Church ? Certainly not. That the justified catechumen is in the
Church is a direct logical consequence from the fact that such are
justified.

Concluding Thoughts

With all the foregoing points in mind, we might anticipate a
final desperate rebuttal that is a simple reduction to “but baptism
is necessary for salvation.” This contention is of course the central
proposition under consideration, with Reverend Crawford quoting
Trent no less than six times when it says:

If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not

necessary for salvation: let him be anathema. (Denz. 860;

cited in Crawford pp. 4, 18, 28, 35, 42 & 49)

But Crawford doesn’t take this canon as a conclusive and
comprehensive display of the Church’s teaching on baptism. He
argues not directly from this canon, but by arguing that baptism is
necessary because it is the only way to have faith, hope, and
charity. Implicitly, he grants that the canon does not “speak for
itself.” If it did, he wouldn’t need to point us elsewhere to
understand it.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 37

Neither do we take the canon as the Church’s complete teaching
on baptism, obviously, because we figure that the degree to which
baptism is necessary is elucidated not in the canon itself but in the
contextual and extant teaching of the Church’s understanding of
the canon. That understanding includes the corpus of Trent’s
teaching which we’ve surveyed here, along with all of the ordinary
teaching which ensued in the wake of the Council, and which
consistently prevailed since the Council.

And we would be remiss not to point out that when Trent
uses the exact same phrasing to teach:

If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either
instituted by divine law or is necessary for salvation...let
him be anathema (Denz. 916),

No one hesitates to seek information elsewhere to better
understand the degree to which penance is necessary. So it
should not be viewed as impious to ask how the Church
understands “necessary 17 .”

We think that to a great extent, the material in this chapter
has addressed this question. Baptism is the instrumental cause of
salvation, it is compulsory for all men after the promulgation of the
Gospel by Divine Precept as a necessity of means to justification.
But as an instrumental cause, rather than principal efficient
cause, its effects— viz., supernatural faith, hope, and charity—may
be substituted for. And besides the wealth of ordinary teaching
we’ve provided to explain the possibility of justification prior to
baptism, the Council of Trent itself describes the same.

17 Note that the Council of Trent says that the effects of baptism and penance may both
be supplied by voto (desire) (Denz. 796 & 807), and then later teaches that penance “is
necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for
those as yet not generated” (Denz. 895 emphasis added). So if both penance and baptism are
necessary in the same wav with respect to those for whom reception is applicable , and if both
sacraments may have their effects communicated by voto (desire), it follows that just as one
may be restored to justice before sacramental absolution through voto, so too may one be
restored to justice before sacramental baptism through voto. We refer readers to Appendix A,
Q’s 3-4 where Bishop Pivarunas pointed this out to Reverend Crawford. Crawford did not
answer the question, he merely argued that the dignity of these sacraments differs and that the
repentance of penitents and catechumens are not the same (pp. 12-13). Both of these claims,
though true, are completely irrelevant to the question of each sacrament’s necessity.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 38

Summary

• We argued that the three theological virtues of faith, hope,
and charity, are necessary for justification and salvation in
the most absolute and unconditional sense.

• We showed that Trent itself, contrary to Reverend
Crawford’s contention, teaches that supernatural faith does
not only start at baptism, and that hope and charity may
also be acquired prior to it.

• Against Crawford’s argument that Trent ascribes to the
catechumen only natural faith received by hearing, we
pointed out that not only does Trent richly describe the faith
of the Catechumen as being a grace which is ordered
toward believing Divine Revelation, but we also compared
this description to Vatican I’s definition of supernatural
faith and saw that they are virtually identical.

• We showed that baptism is called “the sacrament of faith”
because it is a profession of faith, not because it is the only
way to receive faith.

• We also discussed the nature of sin as a privation of grace,
and how, nothing else is needed to remove a privation
except the introduction of what was lacking (i.e., grace and
the supernatural virtues).

• We explained that since grace is not static but is something
that we grow in, baptism’s “infusion” of the three
theological virtues is not redundant.

• We drew attention to Reverend Crawford’s lack of attention
to the scholastic language used by Trent, and showed that
baptism as the instrumental cause of justification is
precisely why (metaphysically speaking) its effects can be
substituted for.

• We argued that when Trent says voto may justify, the word
voto means much more than (as Crawford contended)
“actually receiving a sacrament while intending to actually
receive a sacrament.” Crawford is aware of the meaning of
this word and why he would attempt to construct such a
silly argument is beyond us; in fact, if he carries this
argument out to its logical conclusion, he will have to
abandon the doctrine of perfect contrition as well.

Moreover, we showed that almost as soon as Trent teaches
that a desire for baptism may justify, it moves on to

Contra Crawford, Chapter Two: On Justification 39

describe that desire consisting in a resolve for baptism and
a turning away from one’s old life toward the
commandments of God. So even without any knowledge of
Latin, the context makes it very clear what this justifying
desire is.

• In this chapter we also devoted some space to discussing
Reverend Crawford’s claims that catechumens are outside
the Church. We showed that Reverend Crawford has a
faulty understanding of the requirements for membership,
and that he conditions membership on something invisible
(supernatural virtue).

• We showed that Pope Pius XII, following Bellarmine, puts
only external conditions on membership and that’s because
membership is a technical status pertaining to externals; to
“be a member” in that sense is not an exclusive synonym
for “being in” the Catholic Church.

• Supernatural virtues, which a justified catechumen has, do
establish a true and meaningful union with Christ and His
Church, but it is not the external bond of membership.

• There was certainly a terminological dispute over the best
way to explain in operational and ontological detail just how
exactly the Catechumen enjoys this union, a dispute which
was more or less settled (at least in large part) with the
Holy Office’s clear preference of the expression “member in
voto”, an expression that can be traced back to St. Robert
Bellarmine at least.

• But there was never a doctrinal dispute (except for the one
Reverend Crawford has attempted to conjure up) over
whether or not justified catechumens are in the Church.
Justification, which is the state of being in sanctifying grace
and being an heir to Heaven, most certainly does not
happen outside Christ’s Church and as such, a justified
catechumen is by definition in the Church.

Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, and

Vatican II

Introduction

Although Reverend Crawford does not expound in great
detail on this point, it is something of a latent argument of his, and
is a common argument in similar literature, that baptism of desire
“leads to,” “paves the way for,” or in some other way is ultimately
and logically tantamount to universal salvation. In this way it is
often argued that baptism of desire is the principal error of Vatican
II, at least in the sense that if we admit to baptism of desire “the
floodgates are open” to all kinds of ecclesiological and
soteriological 18 error.

This brief chapter will be something of a reprieve following
the last chapter. In this chapter we’ll quickly provide a few
arguments to show how universal salvation doesn’t follow from
baptism of desire. We’ll show that one must learn from heretics in
order to even make such an argument, and we’ll conclude by tying
these considerations back to the importance of the ordinary
magisterium.

The Logical Problem

Reverend Crawford cites Vatican ll’s Lumen Gentium as
footnoting Pope Pius Xll’s Suprema Haec letter to support its
teaching that “the plan of salvation” also includes Muslims (pp. 2-
3). The implication being that we (generally, as Catholics holding
fast to Tradition) reject Vatican II because it teaches universal
salvation, but Vatican II got its ideas from baptism of desire,
therefore, baptism of desire is the “root problem.” Without
baptism of desire, there’s no universal salvation (so goes the
argument).

It should be abundantly clear that what we have argued,
and the material we have used to support our arguments, does not
resemble anything remotely near universal salvation. Grace, faith,
hope, and charity are relentlessly required for a soul to be justified.
This doctrine is found everywhere and is inescapable from the
solemn to the ordinary texts. Baptism of desire is premised on this
understanding, so any later conclusion which abandons that

18 Soteriology is the theology of salvation.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, &
Vatican II 42

premise is clearly not a logical consequence of baptism of desire.

If universal salvation abandons the necessity of faith, hope, and
charity for salvation then we know by that fact alone that baptism
of desire does not and could not lead to it. So, in the strict order of
logic it is simply untrue that baptism of desire is the same thing as,
or leads to, universal salvation.

Ignoring Distinctions

A slightly revised version of the same argument advances a
case that looks something like this: baptism of desire represented
the first relaxation or watering-down of the Church’s doctrine on
salvation; whether an error in its own right or not, it certainly
relaxed Churchmen’s attitudes about salvation and disposed them
to accepting, believing in, and teaching universal salvation.

For starters, to view baptism of desire or membership in
voto as diluted or otherwise relaxed versions of Catholic teaching
is to ignore everything that’s been said up to this point. To
illustrate this, consider how the great American convert and
tenacious defender of EENS, Orestes Brownson (1847), defends
the justified catechumen:

The apparent exception [to EENS] alleged turns out,
therefore, to be no real exception at all; for the persons
excepted are still members of the body of the Church in
effect 19 , as the authorities referred to [Brownson has just
finished citing Bellarmine and some others to prove that
catechumens are in the Church] have labored to prove.

They [i.e., justified catechumens] are persons who have
renounced their infidel and heretical societies, and have
found and explicitly recognized the [Catholic] Church... Their
faith is the Catholic faith; the unity they will is Catholic unity;
the Church at whose door they knock is the Catholic
Church; the sacrament they solicit, they solicit from the
hands of her legitimate priests, (p. 240)

19 We might remind the reader of the brief discussion regarding terminological disputes
over how best to describe the justified non-baptized; Brownson uses “member in effect.” He
wrote a hundred years prior to the relative standardization of the tenn “member in voto,” so
he can of course be excused for what might not be the best term to use—besides, it’s clear
enough by his further explanation what he means by this term.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, &
Vatican II 43

Brownson hits on all the key points, and one would be hard
pressed to find any author in Church history (and we do mean any)
who is as committed and unrelenting in preaching that there is no
salvation outside the Church. The point being that only if one is to
ignore all of the distinctions made up to this point—not distinctions
invented by “mere men” but distinctions used at the Council of
Trent, distinctions found in St. Alphonsus and decreed with papal
authority to be free from even the slightest error, distinctions
Bellarmine tells us are the universal teaching of the theologians—
and butt our heads against the wall does the idea of baptism of
desire pose any threat of “watering down” Catholic teaching.

And even if we were to grant that baptism of desire
“relaxed” Churchmen’s vigilance against errors in soteriology, all
that shows is the importance of properly understanding baptism of
desire. Arius’s corruption of the truth that Christ had a human
nature was not a proof of Christ’s humanity being an error, nor was
the Protestant error of justification by faith alone a proof that faith
doesn’t play a role in the justification process. If someone errs
then the remedy is not throwing away doctrine but improving one’s
understanding of it!

But it isn’t even true that baptism of desire created some
disposition for accepting universal salvation. As we’ve just seen in
the last chapter, baptism of desire is something that was
universally taught at the very least since Trent, per Bellarmine’s
testimony 20 . The Church maintained baptism of desire for
hundreds of— if not more than a thousand— years without the
“threat” of universal salvation looming over the doctrine. That
universal salvation did not gain any traction in all of this time tells
us that some other belief or system—probably modernism, which
came about far more proximate to universal salvation than
baptism of desire did—is responsible for universal salvation.

20 In truth, one could make a very good argument for its universality being found much
earlier, at least with St. Thomas or even the Patristic age, but pinpointing the exact moment
the teaching achieved universal status is not necessary; as we mentioned in Chapter One, the
Church cannot err universally even for a moment, so if something is universally held ever,
such is proof enough that it is Catholic teaching.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, &
Vatican II 44

Heretics are not Credible Sources for the True Sense of Doctrine

Thirdly, finally, and probably most importantly, the
argument that Baptism of Desire “leads” to or “paves” the way for
Universal Salvation and Vatican II is proved false because it gives
too much credit to heretics. Need we point out that heretics are
not credible? If we want to know the true meaning or implication
of Catholic teaching, a heretic is quite truly the last person on
earth that we go to.

The rebuttal may be anticipated: “But the heretics used
baptism of desire to justify universal salvation!” Well, yes. That’s
how heresy “works.” Few and far between are the heretics who
supported their heretical notions without some reference to
legitimate Catholic teaching. Luther argued for faith alone by
pointing to St. Paui and Scripture. Calvin argued for double¬
predestination by pointing to St. Augustine. The Fraticelli
condemned the Church’s possessions by pointing to Saint Francis.
And so on. It is crucial to the success of any heresiarch that they
not break completely with the Christian tradition (which is why we
call them heretics and not apostates ) because if they do, then they
lose the support of all those they are trying to convince. Heretics
always, almost by categorical definition, attempt to prove their
errors by pointing to Catholic doctrine. So of course it comes as no
surprise that universal Salvationists would claim that they’re just
believing in baptism of desire.

And if we take the word of the heretic that his
understanding of some doctrine is the true one, then we make
heretics our rule of faith! And this is exactly what we must do if we
wish to argue that Baptism of Desire is wrong because heretics
use it to support universal salvation. We must throw out what the
Church understands the doctrine to mean—as explained by St.
Thomas, confirmed by Trent, proliferated by Bellarmine, Liguori,
and the Church’s ordinary magisterium— and instead figure that
Rahner et al. are the ones who truly understand it. Need we even
say that such a method is truly insane?

Looking at Church history, the Church has never conceded
that one of her teachings “paved the way” for heresy. Did the
doctrine of Christ having a human nature “pave the way” for

Contra Crawford, Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, &
Vatican II 45

Arianism? Surely, Arius would never have gotten it into his head
that there’s a contradiction between someone being God and man
if the Church hadn’t first insisted that Jesus Christ was both divine
and human. Did the Church “de-emphasize” Christ’s human
nature at Nicaea? Push it under the rug because it was a doctrine
that clergy and faithful twisted to mean something she never
intended it to mean?

Of course, we know that at Nicaea the Church re-asserted
what she already taught at an ordinary level: Jesus Christ is God
and man. She didn’t grant to Arius that there was any
contradiction in this proposition and she didn’t get bullied by
rhetoric into thinking that her immaculate doctrine paved the way
for error. She asserted that doctrine is to be understood the way
she understands it— not differently in any direction. But only and
exactly how she understands it.

Concluding Thoughts

As we wrap up this chapter, it seems only fitting to tie our
most recent considerations about Arianism back to what was
established in Chapter One, viz., the force and infallible nature of
the Church’s ordinary magisterium. If we lived during Arius’s time,
by what principle in Reverend Crawford’s proposed rule of faith
would we say that it was Arius who erred? We cannot say that
Arius contradicted solemnly defined teaching, since there wasn’t
any. We cannot point to the scriptures, since they were not yet
solemnly defined either. The only reference point by which to
compare Arius’s doctrine to the doctrine of the Catholic Church
was by comparing it to the ordinary magisterium. But since the
ordinary magisterium (in Reverend Crawford’s view) is only
infallible when it agrees with something that’s already solemnly
defined, the ordinary magisterium might’ve been wrong about who
Jesus Christ was. Could it be that Arius was right all along? That
he was the proto-Feeney, standing up against the teachings of
“mere men” in a righteous attempt to save the Godhead from
being watered down with a human nature? That Nicaea was really
a robber council, that Ss. Athanasius, Liberius, Felix, Nicholas, and
all the rest were the first modernists, establishing an anti-Church
in nascent Christianity to diabolically disorient and deceive the

Contra Crawford, Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, &
Vatican II 46

faithful for as long as possible, encouraging them to worship not
God but a man?

Of course we don’t expect the reader to take this Dan
Brown-esque consideration seriously. But why not? Remember
that a rule of faith isn’t a rule at all if it isn’t applied consistently.
What makes the Church’s universal ordinary teaching “count” in
the Arian crisis? From our perspective, it’s not difficult at all to
show why Arius was wrong. Fie came along three hundred years
after the fact, while everyone was peacefully and universally
teaching and believing that Jesus Christ was God and man, and he
dissented from that ordinary teaching. This argument isn’t
available to Reverend Crawford. So if he lived in 300 AD, how
would he know that Jesus Christ has a Divine nature?

Summary

• In this chapter we have addressed the claim that baptism
of desire is controvertible with universal salvation. We’ve
shown that baptism of desire is premised in a belief that
faith, hope, and charity are required for justification, so if
universal salvation denies those conditions, it clearly does
not logically come from baptism of desire—only by crudely
ignoring all of the distinctions and arguments put forth thus
far can any such conflation be made.

• We’ve also argued that since baptism of desire was
universally and explicitly taught for at least five hundred
years (i.e., since the Council of Trent) without universal
salvation ever coinciding with it, it’s not true to argue that
baptism of desire “relaxed" or otherwise disposed the
Church to accepting universal salvation.

• We also exposed that one can only mount the “paved the
way” argument if one ignores what the Church has taught
on the issue and instead supposes that the heretics
twisting the doctrine are the ones who got it right—which is
truly absurd.

• We have also considered that if one were to maintain the
rebutted logics in this chapter, one could legitimately

Contra Crawford, Chapter Three: On Baptism of Desire, Universal Salvation, &
Vatican II 47

conclude that Arianism 21 was legitimately borne out of the
doctrine of Christ being God and man. We also pointed out,
as a way of returning back to the central point pervading
our work, that if we used Reverend Crawford’s rule of faith
during the Arian crisis we could legitimately conclude that it
was Arius who was right all along.

21 In keeping with this Arian theme, we know that sometimes the Arian crisis is
propped up as a precedent for the ordinary magisterium being capable of error, with many
traditional Catholics being under the impression that during the Arian crisis, most of the
world’s bishops lost the faith. It is probably relevant here to, via footnote, quickly correct
this common but erroneous “myth” that circulates among traditional Catholics. Factually,
this idea is simply incorrect. The myth is likely borne out of St. Jerome’s statement that (is
usually presented as being something like) “the whole world groaned and awoke to find itself
Arian,” and/or possibly the Emperor Constantinus’ letter to Liberius, where he asked who
Liberius was to stand up for Athanasius “against the world.” Cardinal Newman, Anglican
convert and noted Church historian argued (even when Anglican) that the majority of bishops
retained the Catholic faith throughout the entirety of the Arian conflict, although he does
criticize them for not being more responsive to Arianism (cited in Geissler, 2012, p. 5). Fr.
Berry in The Church of Christ (1927) denies the claim that Arians were ever a majority,
citing St. Athanasius’ letter to the Emperor where in Saint Athanasius (who would know
better than anyone regarding the scope of Arianism) testifies to the fidelity of the vast
majority of prelates (pp. 169-70). Saint Alphonsus Liguori’s Histoty of Heresies (1772)
provides a comprehensive history of Arianism wherein he also maintains that Catholic
bishops remained the very clear majority during this period (pp. 55-83, esp. §§44-9). Fr.
Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (1898) explains that St. Jerome’s quote was a
rhetorical device, and perhaps a humorous exaggeration of the Council of Rimini, a non-
sanctioned council where many bishops were coaxed into signing a semi-Arian creed (p.

303). Fr. Laux’s (1931) popular Church History says the same (p. 119). At any rate, the
commonly circulated claim among traditionalists that the Arian period was a period where
most or even practically all Catholic bishops were in fact Arian bishops is completely
unsupported by the Church’s historians—they say the opposite. Indeed, we might simply ask
that if most bishops were Arian, why was Arianism met with such decisive resistance at
Nicaea?

Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors
Introduction

Chapter Two contains the bulk of our arguments addressing
Reverend Crawford’s beliefs about baptism, justification,
membership, and salvation. In the present chapter we would like
to respond to some related mistakes he makes regarding the
infallibility of canon law, and address some of the claims he has
made to diminish the authority of the fathers and doctors of the
Church. Our response will highlight further doctrinal errors of his,
and in the process we will begin to see that baptism of desire
denial, at least for Crawford, can only be maintained by distorting if
not ruining the Church’s laws, history, and Fathers.

Canon Law

Several questions responded to by Reverend Crawford deal
with Canon law (Appendix A, Q’s 7-12). Canon law is the Church’s
law, and represents her effort to codify and legislate the divine law
for human praxis. Broadly speaking, it includes things like
liturgical laws, disciplinary laws, marriage laws, penal laws and
processes, and so forth. The Church’s laws contribute to the
debate over baptism of desire, because several canons mention it.
For instance, Canon 737 §1 explicitly teaches baptism of desire:
Baptism, the door to and foundation of the sacraments,
necessary for the salvation of all persons in fact or at least
in desire, is not validly conferred except through a washing
with true, natural water accompanied by the prescribed
verbal formula (trans. Appendix A, emphasis added). 22
As an extension of canon 737’s understanding of baptism’s
necessity, Canon 1239 §2 teaches that:

Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without
baptism, are to be counted as baptized [for purposes of
Christian burial] (trans. Appendix A). 23
Clearly, canon law teaches the possibility of a salvific baptism of
desire. This alone should end the debate if canon law is infallible.

22 In Latin: "Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel
saltern in voto necessaries ad salute, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem awuae verae et
naturalis cum preasecripta verborum forma” (Gasparri, 1918, p. 212).

23 In Latin: “Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptism moriantur, baptizatis
accensendi sunt” (Gasparri, 1918, p. 354).

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 50

When asked if Canon Law was infallible, Reverend
Crawford replied in the negative (2017, pp. 5-7; 2018, pp. 18-21).
He has given several reasons for this belief. In his 2017 replies he
gave two arguments: he argued that canon law is fallible because
it can be changed, and that canon law is fallible because it is not
universal. In his 2018 Untitled Booklet, he argued that only the
footnotes are infallible. We will address all of these arguments.

Infallibility and Immutability

It is true that canon law can be changed, which means that
it isn’t immutable, but that hardly means that it isn’t infallible. If
we recall, infallibility means a providential protection from even
the possibility of error. This is not the same thing as immutable,
which means unchangeable. When we speak of the infallibility of
laws, we speak of something that, of its very nature, is tied to
temporal space and therefore influenced by extrinsic factors. In
other words, infallibility of the Church’s laws means that there can
never be anything intrinsically wrong with them, even though
certain extrinsic factors or events may arise and make some law or
another, though infallible, simply not as applicable or prudential as
it was when it was first promulgated. And as a result, the legislator
may change, amend, or even abolish the law.

There are many examples of such changes throughout
history. The Council of Trent’s (Session 24) decree Tametsi was
abolished and replaced by Pope St. Pius X’s universal decree Ne
Temere, which made some adjustments to the requirements for a
valid and lawful marriage. Likewise Pope St. Pius X’s Divino Afflatu
dramatically reformed the Roman Breviary. Or what better
example than the Code of Canon Law itself, which abolished all
legislation that came before it, except and unless such previous
legislation was explicitly retained by it?

Since these laws all changed, were they “fallible?”

Certainly not. Any time the Church makes a law, she makes an
implicit judgment that the law is intrinsically compatible with the
Catholic faith. While, due to later circumstances her laws may be
more or less prudent from one moment in time to the next, or
more or less effective in the pursuit of some goal or another, she
can hardly promulgate a law which is intrinsically incompatible

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 51

with revealed truth, or intrinsically contradictory to her divine
mission, viz. the salvation of souls. As Van Noort (1957) says:

The imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical
purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of
doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the
Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine.

[The Church] would not be a teacher of the Christian way of
life, for by its laws it would induce corruption in the practice
of religious life. (Vol II, pp. 115-16, emphasis retained)

Does Reverend Crawford realize the implications of his contention
that canon law is fallible? It means, in principle, that the Church
could be responsible for error, that due principally to her own
actions she could lead souls to Hell. That she is in cohort with the
world, the flesh, and the devil. If he is willing to carry that logic out
then we certainly don’t see why he bothers with Catholicism at all;
such is hardly the pillar of truth described by St. Paul. We certainly
wouldn’t bother belonging to that kind of Church. Would the
reader?

Universality

Reverend Crawford also says that Canon Law is fallible
because it isn’t universal. By universal, Reverend Crawford
evidently means an application to everyone, everywhere. A
logician would say that this is an argument that “proves too
much.” We challenge him to name a single law which has ever
been universal in this sense. Liturgical laws certainly aren’t, as
there are close to two dozen Catholic rites of sacraments between
east and west, and at that, certain liturgical laws only apply to
certain people: laws governing the order of mass only apply to
priests, laws regulating the form of marriage only apply to engaged
couples, and so on. And penal laws certainly aren’t universal in
Crawford’s sense, since they only apply to criminals. Laws
governing fast and abstinence aren’t either, since they only apply
to certain age groups. And of course, laws governing the
construction of religious orders, the faculties of confessors, the
resignation of offices, the annulments of marriages, etc. all only
apply to certain classes of people. Need we go on? By Reverend
Crawford’s standard, there is no such thing as a universal law.

Now, Reverend Crawford’s reasoning was simply this: the
first canon of the 1917 Code states that it (the law) does not

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 52

pertain to the Oriental Churches 24 . He should have looked closer,
though, starting with the actual bull of promulgation:

Having invoked the aid of Divine grace, and relying upon
the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of Our
own accord and with certain knowledge, and in the fullness
of the Apostolic power with which we are invested, by this
Our Constitution, which we wish to be valid for all time, we
promulgate, decree, and order that the present Code, just
as it is compiled, shall have from this time forth the power
of law for the Universal Church, and we confide it to your
[i.e., the episcopate’s] custody and vigilance. (Pope
Benedict XV Bull of Promulgation, cited in Augustine, 1918,
p. 67)

Next, how about the actual text of the canon? It reads:

Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the
Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless this
[Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind
the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature,
apply to the Oriental. (1917 CIC, C. 1, trans Peters, 2001,
p. 29)

So it isn’t true to say, blankly, that the law simply “doesn’t apply”
to the Eastern Churches. The first canon is in the code’s book of
general rules, and this canon merely states that as a general rule,
the disciplines of the code are not meant to replace the
disciplinary practices in the east, because those Churches:

Have for a long time retained, without objection from Rome,
their traditional government and discipline. The Code, by
this first canon, confirms that traditional policy. (Bouscaren
& Ellis, 1946, pp. 15-16)

And if we take any canonist at random, they all admit that any time
the code treats of faith or morals, it pertains to the Oriental Church
by its very nature (Augustine, 1918, Vol. I, pp. 72-3; Bouscaren &
Ellis, p. 16; Meehan, 1918, p. 45; Woywod, 1918, p. 1; Woywod,

24 Our audience is primarily Latin Catholics, but there are a variety of different
Churches besides the Latin (Western) Church. The Eastern or Oriental Churches include a
variety of ancient rites and governments. Some of the more notable ones include the
Melkites, Maronites, Byzantines (of varying ethnic rites), Malabars, etc. These are not to be
confused with the schismatic Orthodox churches which often bear the same names. The
various eastern Catholic churches are fully Catholic, although their sacramental rites and
government may be more or less alien to the knowledge or experience of many Latin
Catholics.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 53

1957, p. 1). Canon 737 (which teaches on items necessary for
salvation) obviously pertains to faith, canon 1239 arguably so, as
an extension of the principle of Canon 737 25 .

But canon law’s infallibility is already proven even before
proving that these particular canons do apply to the east. The law
itself is promulgated to the universal Church; and while a
particular canon therein may or may not have certain exemptions
and scopes of applicability, that doesn’t somehow make those
laws capable of intrinsic error.

Let’s conclude our discussion of canon law’s universality by
carrying out the logic of Reverend Crawford. If the Church is
fallible in creating a law any time that law doesn’t apply to
everyone everywhere, how are the sacraments (for example)
protected? Liturgical law is part of the Church’s positive law 26 , and
it has been somewhat frequently changed or re-legislated
throughout history (e.g. Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, Pope St.

Pius X’s Divino Afflatu, Pope Pius Xll’s Holy Week reforms and
Sacramentum Ordinis, etc.). Quo Primum, for instance, only
applies to Catholics in the west, and at that, not even all western
Catholics, and at that, only clergy. So, per Reverend Crawford’s
conditions, Quo Primum was not divinely protected from the
possibility of erring: it’s fallible. It’s a pretty ritual, sure, but we’re
not guaranteed of its doctrinal integrity. For all we know, it’s an
aesthetic ruse to attract people to a Church that’s been teaching
soteriological heresy for five hundred years. Pope St. Pius V was
the pope under whom Trent’s teachings were disseminated, and
we know that this dissemination coincided with baptism of desire

25 Canon 1239 instructs catechumens who die without baptism to be given Christian
burial. Now, if it were the case that the Church has solemnly defined that those who die
without baptism are categorically reprobate, it seems to follow that such a practice would be
intrinsically impious, for at the very least it would communicate a hope of salvation for those
whom the Church has clearly defined no such hope exists.

26 Readers might argue that Canon Law and Liturgical Law are not the same thing.

This is technically true (there is much overlap, though, since canon law prescribes that
liturgical law be followed), but all of the same arguments regarding canon law’s infallibility
are the same arguments which prove liturgical law’s infallibility; mainly, that if the Church
authored impious, immoral, or invalid liturgical formulas she would be complied in the
destruction of souls.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 54

being universally taught by the ordinary magisterium, so the
timeline certainly matches up for such an argument.

Infallibility of the Footnotes

Reverend Crawford might be beginning to see the sort of
absurdities that ensue from the conditions he’s put on canon law’s
infallibility, since in his Untitled 2018 Booklet he does not use the
arguments we’ve just addressed. Instead, he says:

Canon Law is not infallible in itself. The infallibility for
Canon Law rests on the footnotes and sources that is given
for each Canon. These sources must be looked up and
observed if they come from an infallible source, such as a
Creed of the Church, a Council, or an Ex Cathedra
Statement. I have a letter from yourself [Bishop Pivarunas],
which says that the sources for each particular Canon are
what are infallible but not the canon itself, (p. 18, emphasis
retained)

We of course have no access to this letter, but we’re sure
Reverend Crawford misunderstood it. What the letter probably said
was something along the lines of what we said earlier, viz. the
difference between infallible and immutable, or it may simply have
said that Canon Law has footnotes, and that those footnotes often
indicate infallible sources of law. Which of course is true, although
it’s a complete non-sequitur in logic (i.e., “it doesn’t follow”) to
suppose this means that only the footnotes themselves, and not
the actual law are infallible!

But suppose that Reverend Crawford had correctly
understood the letter, and it really said that. Why would he take
Bishop Pivarunas’s word for it? That seems to be the most
obvious, pressing question. He calls Pivarunas obstinate and
stubborn, and accuses him of having teachings separated from
the unity of the Church (p. 31). And he’s using this same person to
understand canon law ? According to Crawford, Pivarunas can’t
even get the basics of what is necessary for salvation right. Yet
somehow he is a trustworthy source on how to interpret a highly
technical and complex body of universal legislation. This is a lazy
and convenient argument from Crawford. If he’s right about
Bishop Pivarunas, then what is he doing listening to him? Why
didn’t he stop to read the law, its commentators, or its
promulgation decree? In all other things he’s gone “right to the
horse’s mouth” (or so he would have us believe, as we’ll see in

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 55

Chapter Six) but when it comes to canon law, he’s perfectly
content to get his information second-hand—from a source
“obstinately opposing the authority and Definitions of the Church”
no less!

If Reverend Crawford wants to convince those who agree
with him already, he’s going to need a better argument for “the
infallibility of the footnotes” besides “Bishop Pivarunas said so.” If
he wants to convince those who disagree with him, let’s see him
produce what the law actually says, or what its commentators and
interpreters say. As a matter of fact, we’ve already done that.
We’ve surveyed the legislator, the law, and its commentators—
none of them condition the law’s infallibility on the footnotes.

Which makes sense, since the footnotes are not part of the
law. The footnotes were compiled by Cardinal Gasparri and
appended to the printing to help lawyers, officials, and other
authoritative teachers and interpreters of the law. But they are not
part of the law any more than Haydock’s or Challoner’s
commentaries are part of the Bible. And this should be obvious
just from reason alone. Of what sense and use is a law if the
entirety of its value is found outside of it? Why did Pope St. Pius X
think that the law should be newly codified if the only trustworthy
things in it were the very laws it was repealing and replacing?

The Council of Braga

With regard to Canon 1239 §2 27 in particular, Reverend
Crawford argues that it isn’t infallible because it doesn’t have
footnotes at all. Moreover, he claims that this canon is actually at
odds with the Tradition of the Church (p. 21). To prove the
“Tradition of the Church” he cites the Council of Braga (563) which
taught that:

Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice nor the service of
chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died
without baptism, (cited in Crawford, p. 21)

It is challenging to know where to start the deconstruction. For
one, what is Crawford doing citing Braga’s canons if only the

27 Which, as a reminder, taught that “Catechumens who through no fault of their own
die without baptism, are to be counted as baptized [for the purposes of Christian burial].”

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 56

footnotes are infallible? He must have forgotten about that
argument. Let’s see the footnotes. Setting that side, he also fails
to follow his own rule of faith. He doesn’t “read the words as they
read” but instead enlarges the meaning of the law, telling us it
allows no prayers for deceased catechumens, when it proscribes
only against very specific ceremonies.

And it gets worse. Despite Reverend Crawford’s attempt to
signal this council as representative of the Church’s universal
discipline, we’re sure that virtually no one has ever heard of it.

That includes Reverend Crawford, since if he knew anything about
it he’d not think it supported his case, especially in light of all the
conditions he’d previously put on the Church’s legislative
infallibility.

This “landmark” council gathered together all the bishops
in the world, except for the vast majority of them. This council was
presided at by eight bishops and no pope (Lopez Bardon, 1907,
§1). It is, in the scheme of notable moments in Catholic history,
virtually unnoticed. And we do not say this to disparage the
council, but to simply draw attention to its proper context: it was a
gathering of the bishops who pertained to the See of Braga (in
Portugal) to develop legislation for their diocese. Its laws are not
by anyone’s standards— especially and most notably not by
Crawford’s standards— an “infallible declaration.” If Reverend
Crawford actually knew anything about the Council of Braga, we’d
all have to marvel in even greater disbelief at the unscrupulously
selective logic required to claim that the Church’s canon law is not
universal because of exemptions to the East, while in the exact
same argument elevating a diocesan synod in the Patristic age,
attended by less bishops than there are fingers on our hands, and
promulgated without the supervision of the Supreme Pastor, as
being “truly” representative of what the Church teaches.

Despite the silliness of trying to use Braga to prove “what
the Church really teaches”, we can gain some insight into the
Church’s attitude toward catechumens by asking why her current
universal laws do not reflect the Diocese of Braga’s sixth-century
laws. Answering this question will allow us to incorporate much
needed historical context which will be useful for understanding

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 57

many other sources used by Reverend Crawford, especially the
Patristic ones (e.g. Ss. Augustine, Ambrose, Nazianzen, et al.).

Disingenuous Catechumens

We generally use the word “catechumen” to refer simply to
anyone who is receiving basic catechetical instruction with the
intent to be baptized and become incorporated into the Church as
a member. But in the early Church, the catechumenate was far
more elaborate, with different ceremonies as well as divisible
ranks and the possibility of ascension and descension within those
ranks depending on one’s conduct. The catechumenate of today—
if it can even be called that—simply consists in progressive
instruction without any considerable fanfare or elaboration. Some
of the actual catechumenate ceremonies from the Early Church
(e.g. the salt, the breathing, etc.) are retained today as part of the
baptismal ceremony, but by and large there is not much similarity
between the catechumenate processes of today and the Patristic
age.

There were multiple reasons for the additional rigor the
Early Church applied to the catechumenate. There is of course
one reason for instruction which applies even unto today, and will
apply always: faith comes by hearing, and in the words of St.
Augustine, “He should be asked whether he believes what he has
heard, and is ready to observe it” (cited in Scannell 1908, Sec 2,
§3). But in the Patristic age, there were additional, heightened
considerations for ensuring that catechumens were instructed with
further elaboration. For one, catechumens were often from
Pagan 28 families or backgrounds and would need additional
intellectual bolstering to effectively combat the apologetical
arguments of their friends and families. Along the same lines a
certain moral bolstering was required during the Patristic age,
moreso than now, because of the violent persecutions Christians
frequently underwent. Catechumens needed to be prepared for
martyrdom.

28 "Pagan” not in the general, colloquial sense we use today as a way of communicating
that someone is irreligious, but Pagan in the proper religious sense: someone who directly
and committedly worships false gods (Mars, Venus, etc.).

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 58

From the subjective perspective of many catechumens,
being a catechumen was better than being a Catholic. For, a
catechumen was able to engender a certain amount of social
esteem and standing, being favorable before Christians who were
growing in strength and number, and being treated in many ways
as though they were Christians. At the same time, they were not
bound to the same laws and observances. As such, it was not
uncommon for catechumens to unduly delay their baptism in an
attempt to “have their cake and eat it too.” These catechumens
would lay claim to the name of Christian while, still being in the
vestibule, they were able to quickly pivot and live immorally with
fewer ramifications, and even to abandon the Christian faith “if
need be” during a persecution (Gibbon 1851, p. 258; Rainy 1902,
p. 446). This sort of tendency gave way to a practice of deferring
baptism until death (Flunter Vol 2, p. 220; Scannell 1908, Sec 2
§3, Sec 2). The Emperor Constantine was a notable example of
this imprudent and sacrilegious delay, but the practice was
lamentably widespread.

Extant problems and controversies are frequently
incorporated into all types of law. Indeed, they are primarily the
reason that any law changes in the first place: to better account
for new problems that old laws didn’t account for. So in a religious
landscape where it was popular for catechumens to impiously
defer their baptisms, what better way for pastors to communicate
to them the necessity of baptism than by legally refusing to extend
to them the courtesy of ceremony when they died? This set a clear
legal demarcation before the catechumen to not “rest on his
laurels” or assume that he had accomplished well enough that
which he hadn’t actually accomplished.

Now, over time, as the catechumenate fell into disuse and
as false churches began to spread in later Christendom, the
prevalence of excessively deferred baptisms subsided. The delays
the Church previously encouraged during the catechumenate
process gradually shortened, curbing abuses. And once Protestant
Churches were available to converts, more prima facie (i.e., “at
face value”) confidence could be placed in a catechumen who
chose the Catholic Church specifically. For instance, suppose an
infidel in 1820 wished to become Christian, or that a Protestant
had become disillusioned with his religion—he could choose to be

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 59

a Lutheran, an Anglican, a Catholic, a Calvinist, a Methodist, etc.
But as we saw Brownson point out earlier, when he knocks on the
door of a Catholic Church, he’s already investigated which
Christian Church is the true one, and ruled out all the non-Catholic
ones, decidedly clinging to Catholic teaching in the face of
alternative false teachings.

The point simply being that this change in the social sphere
lent greater credibility to the ardor of catechumens in general, and
combined with fewer liturgical delays in administering baptism, the
abuses and deferrals which were formerly widespread were now
no longer a concern. As a result, it was no longer expedient or
especially relevant to legislate those problems. Consider that if a
municipality has a problem with people drowning in a lake drop-off,
it makes a law forbidding people to swim there. If the lake dries
up and condos are built on top of it, it repeals the law—because
the problem the law was solving doesn’t really exist anymore.
Likewise, when the Council of Braga convened in the Patristic age
it legislated in a context where there was a serious problem with
catechumens delaying their baptisms, so it made a law which
clearly communicated to them that they need to get baptized if
they want to be treated as baptized. There was hardly a need for
such a law when the Church codified her canons in 1917.

Keep in mind that the Council of Braga governed, well,
Braga— not the universal Church. So there’s no question here of
the Universal Church even changing its discipline in regards to how
catechumens are treated; as far as we’re aware, there’s never
been any universal legislation about catechumen burials one way
or the other. But even supposing there were such legislation, it’s
quite natural that once the problem of disingenuous catechumens
went away, laws governing that problem would go away, too.

Nazianzen and Ambrose

What these considerations imply (among other things), is
that context matters quite a bit. And context is not always just
historical. Often-times when dealing with some author or another
context is also intertextual, meaning that what an author says in
one place is affected by something else they’ve said in another
place. A few Fathers of the Church are cited by Reverend Crawford
as condemning baptism of desire. But once we add back in both

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 60

the historical context of the problems they were dealing with and
incorporate their larger body of teaching, they hardly make
Crawford’s case.

For instance, Reverend Crawford provides what he calls St.
Gregory Nazianzen’s “Oration of the Holy Lights” where St.

Gregory, according to Crawford, denies baptism of desire (pp. 36-
7). No doubt the quote in question might appear that way if taken
in a vacuum, but Catholic Truth doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Now,
the irony is that Crawford mistakenly says this quote comes from
the “Oration of the Holy Lights.” It does not. The “Oration of the
Holy Lights” (381) is where Nazianzen says:

I know also a fourth baptism—that by martyrdom and blood,
which also Christ himself underwent; and this one is far
more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be
defiled by after-stains (§27).

Which of course is an affirmation, not a denial, of baptism of
desire 29 .

The quote that Reverend Crawford uses from St. Gregory is
actually from the “Oration on Holy Baptism.” This was a sermon
given to catechumens on the occasion of their baptism,
incidentally, the day after the Oration of the Holy Lights. St.
Gregory, aware of the deferral problems we discussed, spends
several paragraphs framing the quote Crawford provides around
the idea of needlessly delaying baptism:

... Let us be baptized today, that we suffer not violence
tomorrow; and let us not put off the blessing as if it were an
injury... why wait for a fever to bring you this blessing, and
refuse it from God? (§§ 11-12).

He isn’t, as Crawford suggests, teaching against baptism of desire.
The context—i.e., knowing that St. Gregory is sensitive to and
aware of excessive deferrals, and knowing that only yesterday he’d
taught the same crowd about baptism of desire—makes this
abundantly clear.

29 Readers may object that this refers to baptism of blood, rather than baptism of desire.
However, it is generally admitted on both “sides” of the debate that one includes the other;
for, if a martyr is “baptized in blood,” he is receiving baptism of desire. Crawford seems to
realize this and treats them as essentially the same thing. Indeed, we’re not aware of anyone
who denies one but not the other; it is a “package” deal, as they say.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 61

The importance of context applies just as equally to St.
Ambrose, who is quoted by Reverend Crawford to a similar end
(pp. 18, 21, 37-8, 44, & 55). Like Nazianzen, Ambrose can be
found appearing to “deny” baptism of desire in De Mysteriis, a
work of similar context to Nazianzen’s: these were a series of
sermons on the sacraments all given during Easter Week,
delivered to neophytes. But only a few years later in his (392)
funeral oration for the Emperor Valentinian who died prior to
baptism 30 he says

But I hear that you grieve because he [Valentinian] did not
receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in
your power other than the desire, the request? But he even
had this desire for a longtime, that, when he should come
into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a
desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all
others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he
not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace
which he requested? And because he asked, he received,
and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man
shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest.’ (Trans
McCauley, etal., pp. 287-88, §51)

The mourning saint continues his oration, offering prayers to God
the Father on behalf of Valentinian:

If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred [baptism], he
would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been
cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish.

Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which
he never rejected.... He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not
received Thy grace? (p. 288, §52).

Once again, if we factor in all of the different informative contexts,
we come to a much clearer understanding of St. Ambrose. When
addressing those who knew very little of the faith, proximate to
their baptism, on the fundamentals of the sacraments , he of
course does not bother with intimating for their immature minds
that one might be justified before baptism. But then when orating
the funeral of one he knew well, and whose disposition he knew to
have indicated the charity described by Trent, he not only presents

30 It is worth noting that Valentinian was one of those who was guilty of excessive
deferral, and once he finally committed to it he was killed on his way to being baptized

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 62

the teaching of baptism of desire but even applies it by invoking
God’s mercy through prayer, trusting that one whose baptism was
missed by powers beyond his control will not be abandoned at
judgment.

Reverend Crawford makes some pretty serious mistakes
with the material he’s taken from St. Augustine as well, but those
are better addressed in Chapter Six because the abuses to those
quotes far transcend the mere contextual mistakes he’s made
with Ss. Ambrose and Nazianzen.

“They can be Wrong”

We might anticipate that this attempt to clarify the
teachings of the Fathers will be met with the off-hand dismissal
that “they’re not infallible. They can be wrong.” Of course they’re
fallible, which is to say that when they teach they are not divinely
protected by the Holy Ghost from the possibility of error. But
granting that they’re fallible is not the same thing as granting that
it is likely for them to err on the basic, bare-minimum requirements
for salvation!

So there is no mistake, let’s clarify (one of the reasons) why
any Catholic would ever bother seeing what a Church Father,
Doctor, or theologian has to say about anything in the first place.
They have a powerful, natural authority as learned men and
experts in their field (which in this case happens to be the Catholic
religion). As such, it is implausible to suppose that they would err
on something as basic as the bare requisites for salvation 31 .
Especially if John 3:5 “reads for itself,” as we so often hear. It
requires a suspension of disbelief to suppose that this particular
error could be made by such learned men, and at that, so many of

31 In rebuttal to this implausibility, one might argue (as Crawford does, p. 34) that St.
Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. But this is a token objection which,
when asserted confidently, reveals unfamiliarity with the issue. On this point we recommend
Lane’s (1998) short summary of the theological controversy surrounding St. Thomas’s
apparent “denial”. In short, theologians have been arguing amongst themselves for
generations whether or not this is true. St. Thomas’s point of dissension was principally
against those who argued that Our Lady was not redeemed, and indeed the very definition of
1854 is sensitive to this objection, with Pope Pius IX being sure to assert that she was
redeemed “in a manner more sublime” (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854, Sec. 8). St. Thomas affirms
that Our Lady was without original and actual sin in his (1255) commentary on Peter
Lombard’s Sentences (D .44, Q. 1, a. 4) and his principles were used to define the
Immaculate Conception, all facts which cannot be easily reconciled with the carte blanche
assertion that he “denied the Immaculate Conception”.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 63

them! It’s like arguing that a learned lawyer would tell their client
that murder isn’t against the law, or that a professional carpenter
would recommend using scissors to cut oak. Being fallible is not
the same thing as being a bumbling idiot.

We know that Reverend Crawford nowhere explicitly asserts
that the Fathers are “bumbling idiots.” But if they’re not, then he’ll
need to abandon his rhetoric that the Church has clearly defined,
once and for all, etc. Because so long as he retains that kind of
rhetoric, he has no business citing the Fathers, Doctors, or any
other authors in support of his view when they’re erring on clearly
defined matters necessary for salvation.

Reverend Crawford tells us that there is one Doctor who
managed to teach correctly on salvation, St. Peter Canisius. Fie
says that Canisius “makes no mention of ‘three baptisms’ and
quotes the Council of Trent to prove that Baptism with water is
necessary” (p. 44). What St. Peter Canisius teaches is that
baptism is necessary for salvation. Guess who else teaches that?
Everyone who teaches baptism of desire. So either they are all
bumbling idiots who don’t realize that they’re contradicting
themselves from one page to the next, or the necessity of baptism
is compatible with baptism of desire.

Which is precisely why (we suppose) Bishop Pivarunas
asked Reverend Crawford to produce an explicit condemnation of
baptism of desire (p. 39; Appendix A, Q 17). Knowing that it is
taught everywhere, and further knowing that wherever it is taught
it is also taught that baptism is necessary, the onus is on
Reverend Crawford to do much more than provide a source simply
teaching that baptism is necessary. Fie needs to show that
baptism of desire is actually condemned, and explicitly, to prove
that there’s any merit to the idea that the two are contradictory.

Fie needs to prove that the supposed tension between the two
exists outside of his own mind.

But all Reverend Crawford does is assume that baptism’s
necessity mutually excludes baptism of desire. We know this
because only with such an assumption does St. Peter Canisius’s
quote even remotely appear relevant to the question. If we
assume, on the other hand, that baptism’s necessity is in perfect

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 64

harmony with baptism of desire, then St. Peter’s teaching is a non-
sequitur on the issue. And of course we needn’t assume such a
thing at all, we’ve already proven it in Chapter Two.

If we’re going to go to fathers, doctors, or theologians and
avail ourselves of their natural authority and expertise, let’s
actually learn from them, not sift through them looking for
whatever agrees with us. Had Reverend Crawford written
pensively, acknowledging that some of the sources he uses
disagree with him elsewhere, and then made some genuine effort
to reconcile that apparent disagreement, we’d still disagree with
his conclusion but we’d certainly find little cause to criticize his
approach. Such as it is, there is no such pensiveness. There is no
such consideration. He eagerly cites them when they agree with
his ideas, and just as eagerly points out that “they can be wrong”
when they don’t.

Concluding Thoughts

We’ve just finished discussing one of the reasons that
Catholics go to the teachings of individually learned men. They
have a natural authority and expertise in the Catholic religion and
are therefore useful resources for questions about religion, just as
a lawyer would be a useful resource on questions of law. Simply
put, they know more about the topic than we do. Their
understanding of Catholic teaching (whether as witnesses of the
ordinary magisterium, e.g. Bellarmine’s witness of all the
theologians teaching baptism of desire; or as witnesses of the
solemn magisterium, e.g. St. Alphonsus’s proof of baptism of
desire through Trent) counts more than ours does.

But that’s not the full extent of their utility in matters of
religion and religious controversy. There is another role they play,
one which we think probably goes overlooked and possibly even
completely unnoticed by our interlocutors. That is the role of
doctrinal exemplar.

What we mean is this: if we already know that some
doctrine or another is taught universally, we might select a
particular instance of the teaching to argue the point. Individually
no man is infallible besides the pope, but as we discussed in
Chapter One, the whole Church cannot err, so if the whole Church

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 65

teaches or believes something, we know by that fact such a
teaching or belief is Catholic doctrine. With this view, St. Thomas,
or St. Bellarmine, or St. Alphonsus, or any of the myriad of
theologians one could cite on the matter isn’t being quoted to
“prove” that baptism of desire is Catholic teaching. It’s already
proved by the universal teaching and belief of the Church, and the
chosen Doctor, Father, or theologian is being cited as a singularly
great explanation or exposition of the doctrine.

The best argument for proving that anything belongs to the
deposit of faith is by appealing to the ordinary magisterium. We
acquiesce to make other arguments only because our opponents
are not convinced of the Church’s infallibility in such teachings, but
among those agreed on the point there is no greater testimony to
Catholic Truth than what the indefectible Church persistently
teaches and believes. Among those who are sensitive to the
Church’s ordinary voice, it is only natural to seek out what the
great Catholic teachers say, given that they are emissaries of that
voice.

Summary

• We have argued that canon law is infallible by showing
how the Church is quickly ruined if it isn’t, and by citing the
promulgation bull, the law itself, as well as approved
interpreters and commentators of it. Canon law is not only
infallible, but it teaches baptism of desire and
incorporates into Christian religious life practices which
are only possibly pious if baptism of desire is compatible
with Revelation.

• We have also discussed the Council of Braga and how it
doesn’t meet any of Reverend Crawford’s standards for
infallibility, and explained that the reason it forbade
certain ceremonies for catechumens is explained by the
fact that it legislated during a time when excessive and
routine deferrals of baptism were a widespread problem.

• That context must be kept in mind when reading patristic
material on baptism, too. When Reverend Crawford
attempts to leverage the Fathers to support him, not only
does he ignore that context, he ignores what they say
elsewhere and simply dismisses them as wrong when they

Contra Crawford, Chapter Four: On Canon Law, the Fathers, and the Doctors 66

disagree with him. It would be much more consistent for
him to just avoid them altogether, but we don’t truly
recommend that, since we concluded this chapter by
arguing for a multi-faceted value of the Fathers and
Doctors.

• This value consists in their natural authority as learned
men who are more qualified to have opinions on certain
issues than we are; it consists in them being reliable
witnesses to the universal faith of their time; and it
consists in them being contributive voices to the ordinary
magisterium—singular examples of what is taught
everywhere.

This chapter more or less concludes our principal
deconstruction of Reverend Crawford’s arguments against baptism
of desire. In Chapter Two we provided the bulk of our direct
doctrinal arguments, but in this chapter we focused more on some
ancillary arguments of his. The arguments Reverend Crawford
made about canon law, the Council of Braga, the Church Fathers,
etc. are not his “main” points. These points were his attempt to
reconcile his beliefs with Canon Law and to bolster his beliefs by
showing they are supported by the Tradition of the Church. As
we’ve seen, the more one tries to maintain denial of baptism of
desire, the stranger and stretchier one’s arguments have to get.

So we see the entirety of the Church’s positive legislation thrown
under the bus of fallibility, the hyper-elevation of long defunct
diocesan laws as representative of “what the Church really
teaches,” and the selective reliance on Church Fathers whom, by
Reverend Crawford’s own argument, are mostly ignorant of what
salvation requires.

Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence

Introduction

Periodic Continence is the systematic practice of
purposefully limiting the marital act to sterile periods. Catholic
theologians prior to Vatican II also referred to this as “Rhythm”,
and in the post-Vatican II era, it’s commonly referred to as “NFP”,
an abbreviation for “Natural Family Planning.” For our purposes,
we will use the system’s earliest given name, “Periodic
Continence.”

Reverend Crawford claims Periodic Continence violates
both the Divine and Natural Laws, and is therefore never lawful
under any circumstances. Resultantly, he claims that Pope Pius
XII erred in his (1951) “Allocution to Midwives”, when he taught
that

There are serious motives, such as those often mentioned
in the so-called medical, eugenic, and social “indications”,
that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole
duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory
carrying out of the act. From this it follows that observing
the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful only under a
moral aspect. Under the conditions mentioned, it really is
so. But if, according to a rational and just judgement, there
are no similar grave reasons of a personal nature or
deriving from external circumstances, then the
determination to avoid habitually the fecundity of the union
while at the same time to continue fully satisfying their
sensuality, can be derived only from a false appreciation of
life and from reasons having nothing to do with proper
ethical laws. (Cited in The Catholic Almanac, p. 84)
Crawford’s argument not only entails a rejection of Pope Pius Xll’s
teaching (1951), but also logically includes rejecting the Holy
Office of Pope Pius IX (1853), the Holy Office of Pope Leo XIII
(1880), and the Holy Office of Pope Pius XI (1932), each of which
affirmed the morality of periodic continence, not to mention every
theologian who has taught on the issue since the science of it
became refined and popularized in the early 1900’s.

What follows is our assessment of Crawford’s claims and
the evidence he provides in attempt to support those claims. This
chapter is neither a promotion nor a favorable recommendation of

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 68

Periodic Continence. We would not promote nor favorably
recommend it any more than we would promote or favorably
recommend cutting off one’s own foot, even though for serious
reasons both can be licit. Our objective is simply to show that and
why Crawford’s position is false, thereby exonerating Pope Pius XII
and the Church at large from charges of error. In brief preview,
we’ve found that Reverend Crawford manifests a near complete
ignorance or misunderstanding of the relevant scholastic and
philosophical concepts needed to engage the topic of marital
morality; that his arguments are not really arguments at all but just
unsupported assertions; that virtually every attempt he does make
to support a claim of his requires him to violently divorce teachings
from their context and omit large swaths of teachings that are
inconvenient to his case; and that his understanding of Divine
Providence is a dangerous caricature of what the Church actually
teaches.

The Question

Reverend Crawford’s arguments against Periodic
Continence happen early in his Untitled Booklet, from pages 8-11.
To start, let’s consider the question Bishop Pivarunas posed to
Crawford, to which these pages were intended to be a response.

Pivarunas presents the following papal teachings from
Pope Pius IX for Reverend Crawford’s consideration:

It is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere
the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also
necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining
to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical
Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which
are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics
as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that
opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine,
although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless
deserve some theological censure. (Tuas Libenter [1863],
DZ 1684.) (Ql, Appendix A, slight reformatting)

And:

Condemned Proposition: The obligation by which Catholic
teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to
those matters only which are proposed by the infallible
judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 69

the faith. (Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors
[1864], DZ 1699, 1722.) (Ql, Appendix A, slight
reformatting).

And then he simply asks:

In light of the same above papal quotes, do you believe a
Catholic can reject Pius Xll’s teaching on natural family
planning which was published in the official Acta
Apostolicae Sedis? If so, what are your reasons and what
theologians can you quote who teach that you can reject
such papal teaching? (Q2, Appendix A)

Reverend Crawford boldly answers, “Yes [we can reject this
teaching]’’ because “all Catholics are obliged to obey Divine Law
above the teachings, laws, and authority of man” (p. 8). He omits
the actual papal teachings of Pius IX from his transcription of the
Bishop’s question, so it may seem like an easier proposition to
swallow when one reads it and doesn’t realize exactly what is
being rejected—not just Pope Pius Xll’s teaching on periodic
continence, but Pope Pius IX’s teachings on what Catholics need
to believe. We certainly would not say these teachings can be
glibly disregarded on the grounds that they are merely the
“authority of man.”

Archbishop Murray’s Letter

In response to the second part of the question (i.e., the
request to provide theologians who would support a rejection of
such papal teaching), Reverend Crawford presents Archbishop
John G. Murray’s (1940) private letter to a Mrs. R.A. Vashro 32
(cited in Crawford, p. 10). Note that Murray does not actually
answer the question that Crawford is supposed to be replying to
(viz., lawful rejection of papal teaching). Instead, Crawford uses
Murray as a sort of “proof” that theologians (or, at least one of
them) have rejected periodic continence.

It is strange and inconsistent for him to attempt to use the
private letter of a bishop to argue against the teachings of a pope,

32 Mrs. Vashro was the mother of Mrs. Jeanne Dvorak. Mrs. Dvorak wrote a booklet
entitled “Natural Family Planning and the Christian Moral Code” in which she included
Archbishop Murray’s letter to her mother. Mrs. Dvorak’s book is, to our knowledge, the only
place this letter has ever been published. We contacted the archdiocese of St. Paul’s archivist
but they did not have a record of the letter.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 70

since he is otherwise so quick to dismiss the common, universal,
and ordinary public teaching of bishops, doctors, saints,
catechisms, and theology manuals in all other instances. If
Archbishop Murray’s letter actually supported Crawford’s claims,
he’d be in for a rough time explaining why none of the arguments
put against him—say, from the published and approved works St.
Alphonsus, St. Thomas, or any of the other esteemed Doctors of
the Church—“count” in the discussion, while the private letter of a
local bishop to a housewife suddenly suffices to settle all doubts.
But the fact is that Murray’s letter doesn’t even support Crawford’s
claims. .

He’s taken it out of context and read into it what he wanted
it to say. In his one comment on the letter, Reverend Crawford
claims that:

John G. Murray, Archbishop of St. Paul, Minnesota, from

1931 to 1956, is an example of a bishop who publicly

denounced the sinful and malodorous rhythm method (p.

8 ).

This is misleading right out of the gate, since nowhere in the letter
does Murray denounce anything as sinful. A careful reading of the
letter and an incorporation of its context would have clearly
communicated that Murray wasn’t addressing the morality of
periodic continence at all. The Archbishop’s letter is a response to
the imprudent publicity of it, which was a violation of his and the
Church’s official stance prohibiting the favorable public
recommendation of the method.

Context and Meaning

The letter concerns a certain “program” of Father Le
Beau’s. Archbishop Murray says that he had previously told Fr. Le
Beau that he (Fr. Lebeau) was acting contrary to a “prohibition”
imposed by Murray on the Archdiocese. The most memorable part
of Murray’s letter is arguably his description of the “notorious and
malodorous Rhythm System... gaining publicity out of Chicago”

(not “sinful and malodorous”, as Crawford says).

Now, there were numerous books and pamphlets on the
“Rhythm System” being rapidly published and widely circulated to
the general public after 1932, when Chicago Doctor Leo Latz
published and enthusiastically promoted his book, The Rhythm

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 71

and Fertility in Women 33 . Though an awareness of the existence
of sterile periods was not new, there was little certainty about
them until research in the late 20’s and early 30’s established the
timing of the fertility cycle with far more precision and certainty
than ever before. Dr. Latz’s book introduced this information to
the American public for the first time, along with calendars and
recommended plans, making it highly accessible to any and
everyone. His book, and the numerous other books and
pamphlets it spawned, quickly spread throughout the Catholic
populace, and led to great confusion and error amongst Catholics
concerning the licit use of periodic continence.

Thus, many Catholics began using it indiscriminately to
avoid having children for any reason, or even no reason at all.

Latz’s commercialized “Rhythm System” became “notorious and
malodorous”, since its publicity out of Chicago facilitated
widespread confusion and abuse amongst American Catholics.

The important distinctions governing its actual licit use became
popularly blurred, ignored, and abandoned as more and more
books and pamphlets spread throughout the Catholic population.
Fr. Calkins (1948) makes this point in his article, “Rhythm: the
Unhappy Compromise”:

What about Rhythm? That simple question is rapidly
becoming a stormcenter of controversy. It comes up during
parish missions, Cana Conferences, bull sessions on
careers, even high school retreats. All too often, wrong
answers are given, bum theology is handed out. Even more
often, right answers are given but very imprudently. These
cause confusion among the laity and lead to cynical
questioning (§1)

Calkins, a straight-shooter, complained that as a result:

Catholic couples have gone hog-wild in the abusive
employment of Rhythm. Theological distinctions have been
pitched completely in the utterly selfish desire to avoid
conception at any cost... The thing is out of hand. A method
meant to be a temporary solution of a critical problem has
become a way of life, a very selfish, luxury-loving,
materialistic way of life. (§§ 10 & 12)

33 Latz’s work was responsible for coining the tenn “Rhythm” as a synonym for
"Periodic Continence”

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 72

But observe carefully that the problem Calkins describes isn’t with
rhythm as such, it’s that:

Too many priests are acting imprudently in the public
recommendation (in classrooms and sermons) of the
method which the Holy See has cautioned "the confessor
may cautiously suggest." There is abundant evidence
increasing daily that only spiritually strong couples can be
trusted really to observe Rhythm prudently, even when a
sufficient reason is present. (Calkins §10, emphasis
retained)

The Church’s attitude toward teaching and recommending periodic
continence was always very reserved, cautious, and prudent. Fr.
Griese (1944) explains:

The attitude of caution which characterizes the
pronouncements of the Holy See and individual members
of the hierarchy [toward the teaching of periodic
continence] is unmistakable. As evidence of this, we might
cite another portion of the decree of the [1937] Fifth
Provincial Council of Malines:

The priests, lest they appear to be giving in to
material egoism (which is) universally increasing,
should abstain from any indiscreet exposition of this
system, be it from the pulpit, or in any assembly
whatsoever... The editors, authors and sellers of
books or periodicals which popularize or
recommend this method “ex professo” must be
reproved. (Griese, p. 82)

Periodic continence was indeed controversial when Murray was
writing, but not because there was any confusion among Catholic
teachers as to whether or not it was intrinsically evil (since none of
them thought that), but over a practical and social question
regarding the degree of publicity and dissemination the system
should receive.

Given that, it should be clear what Murray meant by
labeling the Rhythm system “that was gaining publicity out of
Chicago” as “notorious and malodorous” (not, as Crawford says,
“sinful and malodorous”). Notorious means “generally known and
talked of,” and especially, “widely and unfavorably known” while
malodorous means “having a bad odor,” or “highly improper”
(Merriam-Webster). The imprudent publicity of the Rhythm System

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 73

was certainly “widely and unfavorably known” and in a “highly
improper” way. That publicity was leading to the widespread sinful
abuse of it, against the Holy See’s instructions that it only be
cautiously recommended in private. Obviously Fr. Le Beau’s public
and favorable recommendations of the system—which are the
whole reason Murray and Vashro were even communicating in the
first place— exacerbated this problem and drew the ire of the
Bishop.

Knowing the Church’s official stance, the clergy’s attitude,
and the public approach to Periodic Continence extant to
Archbishop Murray’s time, we have the necessary context to
understand his letter. He was not addressing the theology of
whether or not it is always sinful, or under what conditions it isn’t.
He was denouncing the imprudent and indiscriminate public
recommendation of it as favorable, perfectly aligned with the
Church’s prohibitions on teaching it.

Milestones in the Church and Science: A Brief History From 1853-
1951

In wrapping up our discussion about Archbishop Murray
and the socio-religious landscape in which controversies over
periodic continence first arose, it is fitting to provide a brief
historical outline of the Church, science, and periodic continence.
Notice that the Holy Office has maintained with unwavering
consistency that in principle, periodic continence is moral, both
before and after periodic continence became a more precise
science. For perspective, the Church’s tolerance of periodic
continence predates the Definitions of the Immaculate Conception
and Papal Infallibility. It is not a novelty by any stretch of the
imagination, and Pope Pius XII was just one in a long line of popes
to affirm its morality.

1853 (March 2 nd ): Rome speaks about Periodic Continence for the
first time on March 2, 1853. The Holy Office of the Sacred
Penitentiary of Pope Pius IX answered a dubium submitted by the
Bishop of Amiens, France. The bishop asked,

Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such
days [‘which conception cannot occur’], to be disturbed,
especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining
from the conjugal act?

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 74

The Sacred Penitentiary replied that:

Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed,
providing they do nothing to impede conception. (Cited in
Griese, p. 36)

1863: The Pfluger Theory becomes one of the first published and
widely received scientific theories concerning the fertility cycle.
Some knowledge had previously existed about a fertility cycle and
sterile periods, but with little certainty or evidence to support it.

The Pfluger Theory purported that menstruation and ovulation
coincide, and that the period immediately preceding and following
menstruation was the most propitious time for conception, though
it still left uncertainty as to timing. It was accepted by practically
all physicians of the late 19th century, until it was refuted in 1898.
(Griese, p. 3).

1880 (June 16 th ): Rome speaks about periodic continence the
second time, on June 16, 1880. Father Le Comte submitted
several questions:

1. Whether married couples may have intercourse during
such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial
sin[?]

2. Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure
either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband
but cannot correct him; or to either spouse who shrinks
from having numerous children [?] (Cited in Griese, p. 37).

The Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary of Pope Leo XIII replied:
Married couples who use their marriage right in the
aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the
confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously
however, to those married people whom he has tried in
vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime
of onanism. (Cited in Griese, p. 37)

1898: The previously widely accepted Pfluger Theory is refuted by
Knauer, and again in 1901 by Halban. This brought the medical
world to the realization that the relation between menstruation
and ovulation was still a mystery, and thus resulted in increased
uncertainty and doubt among physicians about the accuracy and
probability of sterile periods (Griese, p. 4).

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 75

1924: Dr. Kyusaku Ogino of Japan publishes his discovery of the
precise limited periods in which conception could be predicted,
based on the common view that a woman is capable of conceiving
only during a certain period of each 28 day lunar month (Griese p.
4; Noonan 1965, p. 444).

1929: Dr. Hermann Knaus of Czechoslovakia publishes research
reaching the same conclusions as Ogino, despite Ogino’s research
being unknown to Knaus (i.e. independently established). These
scientific discoveries become known as the Ogino-Knaus theory
(Griese, p. 4; Noonan p. 444).

1930 (August 15): The Lambeth Conference of the Anglican
Church passes a resolution permitting the use of artificial/material
contraception. This was the first time in history that a Church
claiming the name "Christian” gave an official declaration
permitting onanism or contraception (Noonan, p. 409).

1930 (December 31 st ): In response to the Lambeth resolutions
passed only four months prior, Pope Pius XI published his
encyclical Casti Connubii (“Chaste Wedlock”). The encyclical
notably condemns the deliberate frustration of the intrinsic nature
of the marital act. (Vermeersch 1932, p. 39; Noonan p. 424)

1932 (June 20): Rome speaks for a third time on periodic
continence. Just a year and a half after Casti Connubii, Pope Pius
XI’s Holy Office reaffirms the 1880 Holy Office decree permitting
Periodic Continence.

Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period

Qu. Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses
who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a
morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage - by
mutual consent and with upright motives - except on those
days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories,
conception is impossible for natural reasons.

Resp. Provided for by the Response of the Sacred
Penitentiary of June 16, 1880. ( Texta et Documenta series
Theologica 1942, trans. Harrison).

1932: Chicago Doctor Leo Latz publishes “The Rhythm of Sterility
and Fertility in Women,” which introduced the Ogino-Knaus theory

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 76

to the American public and the English speaking world for the first
time (Griese, p. 2). Latz coins the term “Rhythm”, and the
application of the Ogino-Knaus theory becomes popularly known
as the Rhythm method. This resulted in the widespread
indiscriminate distribution of pamphlets, books, teachings, and
favorable recommendations that were detrimental to society and
the Church, as explained previously.

1937: The Fifth Provincial Council of Malines under Cardinal Van
Roey reaffirms the licit use of Periodic Continence:

(1) the use of the sterile period presents dangers, such as
the encouragement of egotism, the unilateral denial of
marriage rights in the fertile period, the lessening of
conjugal love, the willingness even to abort a child
conceived by mistake; (2) the method is consequently not
to be proposed except to onanists, to wean them from their
sin, and to others who have adequate reasons for avoiding
conception; (3) adequate reasons for avoiding conception
are danger to the wife from childbirth, or ‘truly serious
economic difficulty in feeding numerous offspring. (Noonan,
p. 444)

1951: Rome speaks a fourth and fifth time on Periodic
Continence. Pope Pius XII reaffirms the licit use of Periodic
Continence in his October 29th Allocution to Midwives and in his
November 26th “Address to the National Congress of the ‘Family
Front’ and the Association of Large Families” (Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 1951, pp. 846 & 859).

The “Intrinsic Nature of the Act”

So we’ve established that Archbishop Murray never
weighed in on the morality of periodic continence, and we’ve also,
in the process, seen that the Holy Office has defended the morality
of periodic continence for more than a hundred years, ever since
the system was first known to man. Given that Pope Pius IX taught
that it is “Necessary [for Catholics] to subject themselves to the
decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical
Congregations” (Denz. 1684), we would be content to simply rest
our case here. Why should we believe Reverend Crawford that
periodic continence is abjectly sinful when we have a consistent
affirmation of its morality from Rome, dating back to even before

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 77

Vatican I? To help satisfy any doubts, we will offer a more detailed
explanation of why periodic continence can be lawful.

Most of Reverend Crawford’s argument against the
lawfulness of periodic continence is him arguing that it is a form of
contraception. To prove this, he relies mainly on Pope Pius XI’s
(1930) encyclical Casti Connubii. Casti Connubii is arguably the
greatest teaching exposition on marriage and marital morality
available to us, especially as regards the sorts of acts which are
forbidden:

Let us discuss the offspring, which some have the audacity
to call the troublesome burden of marriage, and which they
declare should be studiously avoided not by honorable
continence ( permitted even in matrimony when both
spouses consent), but by frustration of the natural act.
Indeed, some vindicate themselves for this criminal abuse
on the ground that they are tired of children and wish
merely to fulfill their desires without the consequent
burden; others on the ground that they can neither observe
continence, nor because of difficulties of the mother or of
family circumstances cannot have offspring. But surely no
reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is
intrinsically against nature becomes in accord with nature,
and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very
nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those
who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural
force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something
that is shameful and intrinsically bad. (Denz. 2239)

The italicized portions above have always been understood to be
condemnations of contraception. But why? The word
contraception never appears once in the entire encyclical.

As was the case with Trent’s teachings on baptism, Pope
Pius XI’s teachings on marriage are not just informed by but also
communicated through scholastic concepts and terms. So he
doesn’t say “contraception is evil” (in as many words), but instead
places the focal point on the nature of human acts. In
scholasticism, “nature” is more or less a synonym for substance or
essence, and a thing’s nature has direct reference to its final
cause (i.e., its objective purpose). Even the word “deliberate”,
though communicating the point, does not quite capture the

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 78

penetrative depth of Thomism in the encyclical, as Fr. Vermeersch
(1938) points out:

In the translation, “deliberately” is chosen as the English
equivalent of the Latin “de industria hominum.” “By the
agency of men” is a more exact rendering (p. 85).

What we intend by these considerations is to draw the reader’s
attention to the fact that, like Trent, Casti Connubii lacks the plain
and colloquially operable language Reverend Crawford’s case
depends on. Like Trent, it draws many of its conclusions from the
Church’s metaphysical tradition, as developed by St. Thomas. For
a timely reminder, let’s revisit Pope St. Pius X’s warning to
students of religion:

The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not
to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being
debated one way or another, but are to be considered as
the foundations upon which the whole science of natural
and divine things is based; if such principles are once
removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow
that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to
perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the
dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy
of the. Church {Doctoris An gelid, §3).

We cannot even understand—never mind love— the Church while
at the same time being ambivalent toward her philosophy.

But there is no need to be intimidated, because the crucial
distinction that Casti Connubii makes is one we suspect most
Catholics are already at least intuitively familiar with. It’s the
distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic. Among distinctions it’s
a fairly basic one, and is in fact the very first thing defined by Fr.
Dominic Prummer (1956) in his popular morality handbook for
priests:

The end of an action (the intrinsic and objective end) is that
to which the action tends of its very nature directly and
immediately: for example, the natural end of an act of
almsgiving is the relief of the neighbour’s need. The end of
the agent (the extrinsic and subjective end) is that which
the agent himself chooses as the primary or secondary end
of his own action. This may but does not necessarily
coincide with the end of the action itself, (p. 5, emphasis
retained)

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 79

Intrinsic pertains directly and immediately to the nature of
something. “Nature” not in the National Geographic sense but in
the relevant, scholastic sense.

Extrinsic, on the other hand, deals with the motives of a
person, or their subjective reasons for doing something. In the
example given by Fr. Prummer, suppose someone gave alms
because they wanted to appear generous, or maybe they were
court-ordered to community service and were motivated by a
desire to satisfy the law. In either case, their motives would not be
to relieve their neighbor’s need. But in both cases, the nature of
the almsgiving act is left completely undisturbed, and therefore its
end unaffected.

With it in mind that intrinsic matters pertain directly to the
nature of a thing or act, and that extrinsic factors cannot even in
principle affect the intrinsic nature of the act conducted, let’s
reconsider all of Reverend Crawford’s attempts to establish the
identical natures of contraception and periodic continence: (all
emphases added)

• “[Periodic Continence and contraception] are both of
contraceptive mentality” (2017, p. 3).

• “They are both deliberately intending to avoid conception”
(2017, p. 3).

• “[Periodic Continence] follows the same mentality and
purpose [of contraceptive use]” (2018, p. 11).

• “Both are intended to avoid conception of a child” (2018, p.
11 ).

• “[Periodic Continence] is a form of contraception that can be
used to purposely avoid the primary end of the marital act.”

(2018, p. 11).

None of these arguments have anything at all to do with the nature
of the act. Without exception, they’re all extrinsic observations.

And as such, they’re completely and entirely outside of the bounds
of what Pope Pius XI condemns in Casti Connubii.

Superseding and Subordinating

The way that Reverend Crawford attempted to frame his
argument for an essential similarity between contraception and
periodic continence was by claiming that:

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 80

Divine law teaches that the primary end of marriage is the
procreation of children 34 , and the secondary end is the
mutual love of the spouses. The Church has defined that
the secondary end (conjugal fidelity) can never supersede
the primary end (procreation of children), (p. 8)

Not only has the Church never “defined” (by Crawford’s standards)
the ends of marriage, she’s never even “defined” that marriage
has ends, and she’s certainly never “defined” that secondary ends
cannot be “superseded" by primary ends. But this may not
actually be the word that Reverend Crawford is looking for. What
we think he might be trying to say is that the secondary ends must
be subordinated to the primary ends. Some English translations
of Casti Connubii’s 59 th paragraph read:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial
rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid,
the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of
concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden
to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary
end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is
preserved 35 .

But the context of this teaching is Pope Pius XI explaining why
sterile relations aren’t necessarily sinful. So attempting to
leverage a “subordinate” argument against periodic continence
fails, since Casti Connubii itself regards sterile relations as
sufficiently preserving the intrinsic nature of the act. Really, the
fact that the encyclical explicitly acknowledges that sterile
relations are not intrinsically sinful should be enough on its own to
tell us that periodic continence is not included in Pope Pius XI’s
condemnations.

34 This is incomplete; the primary end of marriage as defined both by Canon Law and
in Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii is dual: the procreation and education of children.

35 This is not the standardized Denzinger translation, but the (1990) translation in the
Pieran Press Encyclicals edition edited by Carlen, which is what the site papalencyclicals.net
uses. In Denzinger, this section is translated as “For in matrimony itself, as in the practice of
the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of
mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to
attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is
towards its primary end” (Denz. 2241). Although a bit clunkier in English, Denzinger’s
translation of this sentence is more precise and direct than the Pieran translation.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 81

Which perhaps is why Reverend Crawford used the word
“supersede,” since to supersede is extrinsic. If we say that
something is superseded by something else, we’re usually using
the word to indicate that something is preferred or mentally
prioritized over something else (whereas subordinate indicates an
actual intrinsic ordering of one thing to or under another). Given
that all of Crawford’s explanations for why periodic continence is
the same as contraception revolve around extrinsic factors like
intentions, priorities, etc., it seems fair to suppose that he really is
saying that the Church has “defined” that one cannot mentally
prioritize one end of marital relations over another.

Which—aside from being simply untrue, however you cut it—
is quite a long ways from arguing that periodic continence is
intrinsically against nature] Mental prioritization is hardly the
same thing as subordination, since a proper subordination in the
context of Casti Connubii and the natural law relates to the nature
of some act. We might mentally prioritize the taste of a meal over
its nutritive qualities, and we may be motivated to eat the meal
because of its smell or appearance rather than out of an
Aristotelian appreciation for its participation in an intricate network
of causality and ends designed to facilitate our sustenance. And in
so doing, we would never be subordinating the primary end of
consuming the meal to a secondary end. That would be just
boilerplate human behavior. Now, if we eat the meal and then go
to the bathroom and purge, we’re frustrating the primary end of
consumption and truly subordinating it to a secondary end. And if
we contracept, we are guilty of the same. But what Crawford
describes is, at worst, an interior disposition of "not wanting to
conceive right now." Not a perversion of the act itself.

Avoidance versus Deliberate Frustration

Fr. Arthur Vermeersch was Pope Pius XI’s primary moral
theology consultant and was selected by the pope to draft and
ghost-write Casti Connubii 36 . As such, he has a unique and

36 What used to be common knowledge among Catholics may have been lost after the
Conciliar revolt, but papal encyclicals are not typically written from start to finish by popes.
For more on Vermeersch’s relationship with Pope Pius XI and authorship of Casti Connubii,
see Ford & Kelly (1963, p. 34); Noonan Jr. (1965, pp. 424-25); & Noonan Jr. (1967, pp. 118-
19)

82

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence

distinguished competence and authority when teaching on these
matters. In his (1932) What is Marriage? A Catechism Arranged
According to the Encyclical Casti Connubii, Fr. Vermeersch
explains that

As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains
objectively directed toward its primary end, which is
generation; and since, according to the maxim that the
purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law ( finis
legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while
observing the iaw, to intend the end for which it was
promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily
vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the
intention of avoiding conception, (p. 44, emphasis added)
And this only makes sense if we keep in mind the difference
between intrinsic and extrinsic. Veermersch (1938) reminds us of
this important distinction:

The due order among the purposes of marriage is never
disturbed as long as the couple performs the copula in the
natural way. Thus the intercourse always retains its natural
tendency towards procreation, thereby safeguarding the
purpose of the act (finis operis). (p. 86, emphasis added)
And again:

This subordination [secondary ends to primary ends] is
preserved in as far as the carnal act is done in accordance
with the law of nature. Carnal intercourse, correctly
indulged, tends to procreation. If that does not result, it is
not due to the couple copulating, but it is due to the order
ordained by God, which decrees that all days are not fertile,
(p. 87)

The “deliberate frustration” referenced in Casti Connubii isn’t a
“deliberate not wanting to have children.” It’s a true and proper
essential disruption, by the agency of man, of the very nature of
the marital act. If we have repeated this point too frequently, it is
only because there is probably no point more crucial to not just
properly understanding periodic continence, but even
understanding why contraception is wrong in the first place. Once
this is firmly apprehended, the fact that periodic continence is not
contraception should be self-evident.

The difference between someone who uses contraception
and someone who uses periodic continence is considerable.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 83

These two acts are no more similar than killing a thief is the same
as reporting him to the authorities, even if both acts are motivated
by wanting to see the criminal punished. Regarding the difference
in moral quality between those who use contraception and those
who lawfully use periodic continence, Fr. Dolan (1937) explained:
One is determined to gain his end, whether or not the laws
of God and Nature are thwarted. There is no such sinful
disposition in the mind of the man who exercises self-
control except at periods of sterility. John Smith, who
practises birth control, wants no children and will violate
any law of God to obtain his end; Joseph Smith, who uses
the sterile period, wants no children, but in order not to
violate any law of God, will control himself except during the
sterile period. No intelligent person can fail to see this
distinction and difference, (p. 11, emphasis added)

What someone actually does in pursuit of an end factors in to
whether or not one acts morally.

At the same time, we might anticipate a rebuttal that even
if the acts are different, the disposition (of “not wanting children”)
is sinful, and therefore periodic continence, since it satisfies this
sinful disposition, is evil. But in truth, there is nothing intrinsically
evil with “not wanting children” or “avoiding conception.” We
understand that this claim will probably be seen as a violent attack
on the sanctity of marriage, but if the reader will carefully consider
the proposition, it is obvious:

• Priests and other religious avoid conception all the time

• Those called to the single state and those who are not yet
married avoid conception indefinitely

• Those who are married avoid conception every moment
they’re not actively engaged in marital relations

As we said: it is obvious that there is nothing intrinsically wrong
with avoiding conception, otherwise clergy would be morally
obliged to procreate, and as soon as children became sexually
mature they’d be morally obliged to get married and start having

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 84

babies. So the question becomes, under what conditions can
conception be avoided 37 ?

Affirmative and Negative Precepts

To better understand the degree to which a person is
obligated to procreate, it is useful to know the difference between
an affirmative and a negative precept. As usual, St. Thomas is
insightful on the matter:

[Affirmative precepts] do not bind for always, although they
are always binding; but they bind as to place and time
according to other due circumstances, in respect of which
human acts have to be regulated in order to be acts of
virtue. (ST ll-ll, Q. 3, a. 2)

An old (1752) catechism by the Irish Bishop Thomas Burke
explains it in the plainest language:

An affirmative precept commands us to do something, and
a negative precept forbids us the doing of something. The
first is called affirmative, because it is delivered in the
affirmative: do this or that. The second is called negative,
because it is commonly intimated by the negative: do not
this or that. The difference between them is, that an
affirmative precept obliges always, but not upon all
occasions; but a negative precept obliges always, and upon
all occasions, (pp. 189-90)

And he gives a useful example:

The affirmative precepts of Faith, Flope, Charity, &c. oblige
us always, so as not to do any thing contrary to them, but
yet we are not bound to practice these virtues upon all
occasions, but only upon certain occasions when these
precepts oblige us. But the negative precepts of not hating
God, [etc.] Oblige us always and upon all occasions,
because there is no time nor circumstances in which the
acts of hating God or our neighbor are not criminal (p. 190)
Hopefully this more or less seems like common sense, merely
adding some specific terms to what most Catholics already know.
The moralist Fr. Slater (1925) puts it in terms that most
traditionalist Catholics in the post-Vatican II era will be sensitive to:

37 Keep in mind that under no conditions can the nature of the marital act itself be
deliberately frustrated; we ask this question with it already in mind that we’ve established
that avoidance is substantially different from frustration. No cause can ever excuse using
contraceptives in marital relations.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 85

A positive law ceases to be of obligation in a particular case
if it becomes hurtful, or if it cannot be observed without
serious inconvenience, (p. 69)

Mass attendance is an obvious example of an affirmative precept
that many can relate to. We are positively obliged to attend Mass
on Sundays, and if we don’t, we sin. But in the present climate,
there may not be a mass available to us—in which case, as
everyone knows, no sin is committed by staying home. Even if
there is a mass available to us, there are certain causes which
would lift the precept: a mother may need to take care of a sick
child, or weather may be so inclement as to make travel
dangerous, etc. Every affirmative precept can, at least in principle,
cease to bind under a certain condition. Whereas every negative
precept, by its very nature, binds unceasingly. Pope Pius XI’s
teaching on the evils of contraception are a negative precept. The
proscription against contraception holds unconditionally, in every
circumstance, for every person (even clergy and the unmarried),
for ever.

But the command to procreate is an affirmative precept.
Pope Pius XII, whom we quoted at the start of this chapter, said as
much when he taught the lawfulness of periodic continence:

There are serious motives, such as those often mentioned
in the so-called medical, eugenic, and social “indications”,
that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole
duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory
carrying out of the act. (Catholic Almanac, p. 84)

And again, when discussing the morality of periodic continence in
greater detail:

The mere fact that the couple do not offend the nature of
the act...would not be sufficient in itself to guarantee the
rectitude of intention and the unobjectionable morality of
the motives themselves. The reason for this is that
marriage obliges to a state of life which, while conferring
certain rights also imposes the fulfillment of a positive work
in regard to the married state itself. In such a case, one
can apply the general principle that a positive fulfillment
may be omitted when serious reasons [gravi motivi ],
independent from the good will of those obliged by it, show
that this action is not opportune, or prove that a similar

86

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence

demand cannot reasonably be made of human nature.

(Catholic Almanac, p. 84, emphasis added)

We’ve emphasized how Pope Pius Xll’s description is strongly
couched in an understanding of procreation as an affirmative
precept and how in his discussion of possible abuses of periodic
continence he mentions only factors extrinsic to the marital act
(intentions, motives, etc.) 38 .

It is beyond the scope of this work to exhaustively delineate
when periodic continence might be lawful. Pope Pius XII provides
a general guide: it is lawful when grave reasons make procreation
inadvisable. Typical examples that authors often offer include
grave danger to the mother’s health, or imminent poverty and an
inability to provide for one’s family if another child were to be born
at that time. What all the reasons for legitimate practice of
periodic continence tend have in common is that they tend to
describe direct threats to one’s state in life, i.e., to one’s vocation.
It might be useful to keep in mind what was mentioned earlier via
footnote viz. the end of marriage actually being dual: the
procreation and education of children. With that in mind, we can
anticipate that situations might arise where the primary end of
marriage is threatened by procreation (e.g., a mother can hardly
educate her children if she’s dead or if another child would literally
make the family homeless, etc.). And priests are of course not
infallible in suggesting periodic continence to couples, and can
only make (or not) make cautious recommendations based on
what is known about the situation and what is known about the
couple.

It seems certain that the Novus Ordo practice of “NFP” is in
violent contradiction to Pope Pius Xll’s guidelines. The idea that
NFP can be practiced indiscriminately as a matter of course, or as
something that Catholics “just do” is not only absent from Pius
Xll’s (or any of his theologians’) teachings, it’s actually condemned
as we’ve just seen. So too does the Novus Ordo practice of
indiscriminately publicly disseminating information on periodic
continence—even requiring married couples carte blanche to learn

38 Here it is worth pointing out that even if sinfully abused, periodic continence doesn’t
“become” the sin of contraception, since it still doesn’t entail an intrinsic corruption of the
nature of the act. Sinfully abusing periodic continence would be a sin against marriage
rather than nature.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 87

how to use it—fly in direct contradiction of the Church’s great
caution in actually teaching and recommending the method. But
these are abuses a la the ones described earlier by Father Calkins
and Archbishop Murray, and while scandalous, certainly don’t
inform the intrinsic morality of periodic continence any more than
the widespread practice of deliberate drunkenness informs the
morality of drinking perse.

The Control of Man

Still, one might say that whether there are legitimate
reasons or not for using periodic continence, the idea of planning
births at all is in stark contradiction to a docile submission to
God’s will. Reverend Crawford certainly seems to argue this when
he claims that periodic continence is sinful because it “puts the
control of procreation in the hands of man” (p. 8). Fie says that
It is absolutely wrong to take the place of God with life and
death. Married Couples must be surrendered to God’s
perfect will and not plan when they will or will not conceive
a child, but instead leave all to God and God alone, (p. 11)
Like earlier when he implied without qualification that it is wrong to
avoid conception, this argument suffers from a very serious lack of
qualification, and without any qualification, these contentions lead
to proper absurdities.

The claim that it is “absolutely wrong” to “take the place of
God” in matters of life and death is itself absolutely wrong. We
already know that St. Paul teaches that the state bears the sword
not in vain (Rom. 13:4), and that the Catholic Church has
repeatedly throughout the centuries upheld the intrinsic morality of
the death penalty. We also know that the Church has consistently
taught that deaths brought about in defense of life are not
murders. If it is “absolutely wrong” to influence death, then the rot
runs much deeper than baptism of desire or periodic continence—
it goes all the way back to the New Testament!

As far as taking control over life, the claim is equally wrong.
The axiom offered by Crawford is harmful if taken seriously. It
would make all medical care immoral. It would make every
intervention to preserve life immoral. Flave an illness? Too bad,
can’t play God, don’t take any medicine. Is your child hanging on
to a windowsill by his fingernails? Too bad, can’t play God, don’t

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 88

interfere. Have a complicated pregnancy? Too bad, can’t play
God, don’t intervene. Now, we’re sure (or at least we certainly
hope!) that Reverend Crawford wouldn’t recommend that you let
your children fall to their death, that you let home invaders have
their way with your family, or that you watch an in uterine baby rot
away without ever stepping in to do something about it. But if he
wouldn’t recommend these things, then he’s going to have to ditch
the bogus claim that it’s absolutely wrong to have any influence
over matters of life and death.

On the other hand, maybe Reverend Crawford really would
make these absurd recommendations. After all, he implies that St.
Dominic would have opposed using fertility knowledge to increase
the chances of conceiving (p. 11). So his condemnations don’t
just extend to knowledge of not having children, but to having
them, too. We are left to wonder whether he condemns the use of
knowledge and reason altogether!

Providence

And of course he gives no attempt at even explaining why
we must act in this way, but merely asserts it by appealing to
Divine Providence. He says “there have been many Saints whose
mothers have died at birth, yet that was the Perfect Will of God" (p.
11). Well, yes, but a statement like this seems to reveal a
completely perverted sense of Providence. Everything that
happens only happens in accordance with the will of God,
permissive or positive. God directly wills, or refrains from directly
willing, every thing that ever has happened or will happen. Walker
(1911) states the Catholic doctrine plainly and simply: “God
directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the
universe was created" (§1). This includes the murder of millions
of unborn children. It includes the revolution at Vatican II. It
includes miscarried children, it includes millions of children never
conceived owed to contraception, it includes everything from atom
bombs to stubbed toes. That God allowed something to happen
doesn’t tell us that whatever happened is morally good! Plainly, a
great many things that God allows to happen are not. It is God’s
will that there is an ongoing genocide of the unborn, but it is not
good that this is happening; it is God’s will that virtually the entire
world lost the faith after Vatican II but it is not good that this
happened—so on and so forth.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence

89

Trusting in Providence does not mean dismissing all
legitimate means of avoiding danger, harm, or death (spiritual or
physical) to oneself or others. There is an old moral story that
goes something like this: a man lived in an area where a flood was
imminent, and when the evacuation order sounded he said “don’t
worry, God will provide.” Days passed and he had moved upstairs
because the floodwaters consumed the lower level of his home; a
rescue team in a boat came by his window and he said “move
along, God will provide.” The water rose even further and he was
on his roof now; a helicopter descended to rescue him and he
ushered it away saying, “I’ll be fine, God will provide.” The man
drowned to death and when he met God at the Judgment he said
“What gives? I believed you would provide!” To which God replied,
“I sent you an evacuation order, a boat, and even a helicopter,
dummy.”

Presumption

When we talk about Crawford’s silly ideas in the abstract,
it’s glaringly obvious that they’re not true in any general sense.

But they’re not true if we narrow their focus and apply them
specifically to married life, either. Marriage and procreation are
fundamentally planned activities. There is hardly as important and
morally significant an act that most people will ordinarily engage in
than the bringing forth of new life. Given the strict responsibility
placed on parents, Fr. Wayne (1936) argued

Contraception is commonly called birth-control; an
unfortunate term, since birth-control as such obviously is a
reasonable and necessary thing. Catholics would be the
last to deny that the human reason should control as far as
possible such an important matter as the coming of new
life into the world, with its added responsibilities to the
parents. In point of fact, the very institution of marriage is a
method of birth-control, since it limits procreation to those
conditions in which a child will be cared for. (p. 65)

We appreciate that Fr. Wayne was not content to allow the liberals
and Neo-Malthusians to control the linguistic landscape.

Language is one of the first things to be abused and co-opted by
cultural revolutionaries, and Fr. Wayne takes the objective
approach rather than being intimidated by liberal phraseology.

And what he’s stating is actually obvious. The natural and divine

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 90

order itself imposes certain controls on procreation. The
institution of marriage, the Church’s impediments to marriage, the
biological rhythms, etc. All of these point to the seriousness of
bringing new life into the world, and the grave care required by
those whose vocation calls them to procreate.

Trusting in God is not the same as failing to appreciate and
respond to the gravities of one’s responsibilities on the
presumption that “God will provide.” As Wayne says elsewhere:
“procreation cannot be undertaken without thought and control;
trust in Providence does not mean banking on a very doubtful
future” (p. 67). What Crawford calls “trust in Providence” is much
closer to presumption than it is to something pious. As Aquinas
explains,

It is vicious and sinful, as being contrary to the natural
order, that any one should assume to do what is above his
power: and this is what is meant by presumption, as its very
name shows (ST, ll-ll, Q. 130, a.l, emphasis added).
Presumption is an especially heinous sin, and is numbered against
those sins which are called “sins against the Holy Ghost,” when it
manifests in contempt for divine justice “through inordinate
confidence in the Divine mercy” (ST, ll-ll, Q. 130, a. 2, emphasis
added). There is nothing humble, wholesome, or virtuous about an
inordinate confidence in God’s mercy. Slater explains that
presumption is actually a vice derived from pride (p. 98). And with
explicit reference to periodic continence, Fr. Griese contends that
Those who find it advisable or even imperative to limit or
avoid conception would be guilty of presumption if they
continued to indulge in regular marital union saying ‘God
will provide’ when legitimate means of avoiding harm or
disaster are afforded in their case, by permanent or even
periodic continence, (p. 86)

Those with serious reasons for avoiding conception that proceed
with the attitude that “God will provide” while dismissing legitimate
means for trying to avert the dangers presented to their family or
self are not trusting in Providence, they are tempting it with
presumption.

Casti Connubii Quotes Analysis

Any discussion about marital morality will necessarily
include a discussion of Casti Connubii. We have already covered

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 91

considerable ground in this chapter in our discussion of the
encyclical's teaching. By this point, its proper meaning should be
clear, and just as clear should be the fact that it doesn’t support
Reverend Crawford’s arguments.

Still, as we draw this chapter to a close, we think it
appropriate to directly engage some of the Casti Connubii material
he quotes. Not because there’s anything left to prove, but
because it is important for the reader to have a preview of how
Reverend Crawford manipulated his quotes of the encyclical to
better support his arguments. This quick exposition won’t focus on
the doctrine of the matter, since we’ve already done that. We’re
simply going to show that Reverend Crawford’s mistakes go
beyond simply misunderstanding the material he uses; he
misrepresents it, too. We will present table summaries comparing
the quotes, and readers may wish to consult pages 8-9 in
Appendix C if they want to follow along.

Consider the first Casti Connubii quote he uses to prove
that periodic continence is against the Divine and Natural laws:

To take away the natural and primeval right of marriage, or
in any way to circumscribe the chief purpose of marriage
established in the beginning by the authority of God, is not
within the power of any law of man. .. .Thus the child holds
the first place among the blessing of marriage. Clearly the
Creator of the human race Himself, who because of His
kindness wished to use men as helpers in propagating life,
taught this in Paradise, when He instituted marriage, saying
to our first parents, and through them to all spouses:
‘Increase and Multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1: 28). (p 8,
emphasis retained)

Following on Reverend Crawford’s assertion that periodic
continence takes control away from God and reverses the natural
order, this quote reads like a statement of principle. As though the
pope were stating simply and clearly that both periodic continence
and contraception are the same thing, because both "circumscribe
the chief purpose of marriage.” But it only reads like that because
it’s been removed from its context and had new context added.

The following table shows the differences:

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 92

Reverend Crawford’s (first)
Casti Connubii Quote

Casti Connubii

To take away the natural and
primeval right of marriage, or
in any way to circumscribe the
chief purpose of marriage
established in the beginning by
the authority of God, is not
within the power of any law of
man... .[He cuts out two
complete paragraphs here.

Pope Pius XI has moved on to
a different thought by the start
of the next sentence] Thus the
child holds the first place
among the blessing of
marriage. Clearly the Creator of
the human race Himself, who
because of His kindness
wished to use men as helpers
in propagating life, taught this
in Paradise, when He instituted
marriage, saying to our first
parents, and through them to
all spouses: ‘Increase and
Multiply and fill the earth’

(Gen. 1: 28).

It is now well established that
truly legitimate authority has
the power by law and so is
compelled by duty to restrain,
to prevent, and to punish base
marriages, which are opposed
to reason and to nature; but
since a matter is involved
which follows upon human
nature itself, that is no less
definitely established which

Our predecessor, Leo XIII, of
happy memory, plainly taught:

"In choosing a state of life
there is no doubt but that it is
within the power and
discretion of individuals to
prefer either one of two: either
to adopt the counsel of Jesus
Christ with respect to virginity,
or to bind himself with the
bonds of matrimony. To take
away the natural and primeval
right of marriage, or in any way
to circumscribe the chief
purpose of marriage
established in the beginning by
the authority of God, ‘Increase
and multiply’ [ Gen. 1:28], is
not within the power of any law
of man." (Denz. 2226)

Once we add back in everything Reverend Crawford cut out,
we can see that:

• This quote not only has nothing to do with periodic
continence, it doesn’t even have anything to do with
contraception. In fact, Pope Pius XI doesn’t begin to speak
about contraception for another forty-plus paragraphs,
more than five thousand words later (for perspective, there

93

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence

are chapters in this book that aren’t even five thousand
words).

• The first sentence of Crawford’s quote is actually Pope Pius
XI merely quoting Pope Leo XIII, and the “right” of marriage
he mentions is the right to choose who you marry.

• The “law of man” is not some broad concept that could
include periodic continence or even contraception, but
literally and specifically laws made by humans to govern
marriage.

o To that end, the whole point of the teachings

Crawford is pulling from is that human laws do have
a certain amount of control over marriage

• The second sentence of Crawford’s quote doesn’t actually
follow from the first at all. Pope Pius XI has moved on from
his discussion of the state and the Church’s powers and
limits to regulate marriage, and moved on to a discussion
solely and explicitly of what God has invested in marriage.

Reverend Crawford’s misrepresentation of the meaning, context,
and significance of this quote then reverberates throughout the
rest of the quotes he uses, which are naturally read “in light” of the
first quote. So he provides his next quote which mentions “this
criminal abuse”—which the reader will naturally suppose refers to
supplanting God’s laws with “the laws of man” but in fact “this
criminal abuse” refers very directly to the deliberate frustration of
the marital act. This is obvious if we just don’t remove the lead
sentence like Crawford did.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 94

Crawford’s (second) Casti
Connubii Quote

Casti Connubii

Indeed, some vindicate
themselves for this criminal
abuse on the ground that they
are tired of children and wish
merely to fulfill their desires
without the consequent
burden; others on the ground
that they can neither observe
continence, nor because of
difficulties of the mother or of
family circumstances cannot
have offspring... Any use of the
marriage act, in the exercise of
which it is designedly deprived
of its natural power of
procreating life, infringes on
the law of God and of nature,
and those who have
committed any such act are
stained with the guilt of serious
sin.

Let us discuss the offspring,
which some have the audacity
to call the troublesome burden
of marriage, and which they
declare should be studiously
avoided not by honorable
continence ( permitted even in
matrimony when both spouses
consent), but by frustration of
the natural act. Indeed, some
vindicate themselves for this
criminal abuse on the ground
that they are tired of children
and wish merely to fulfill their
desires without the
consequent burden; others on
the ground that they can
neither observe continence,
nor because of difficulties of
the mother or of family
circumstances cannot have
offspring. But surely no reason,
not even the gravest, can bring
it about that what is
intrinsically against nature
becomes in accord with
nature, and honorable. Since,
moreover, the conjugal act by
its very nature is destined for
the generating of offspring,
those who in the exercise of it
deliberately deprive it of its
natural force and power, act
contrary to nature, and do
something that is shameful
and intrinsically bad. (Denz.
2239, emphasis added)

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 95

Not only does Reverend Crawford remove the sentence
which explains what this “criminal abuse” is, he removes a
sentence from the middle of the paragraph ( italicized in the table)
to help avoid any reference to what it actually is. And then he
adds that removed sentence back in as a “third” quote, as though
it follows in sequence from the others, making Pope Pius’s
reference to that which is “intrinsically against nature” refer to this
“criminal abuse” which Crawford has implied relates to some
broad notion of the “laws of man” supplanting the laws of God.

This whole sequence of Casti Connubii quotes is just a clever
farce.

Concluding Thoughts

This chapter has been uncharacteristically long, and we
have dealt here with a topic seemingly unrelated to what we’ve
been discussing throughout (justification, baptism of desire, etc.).
But there is an intimate thematic relationship between the errors
we’ve witnessed with regard to justification and those we’ve
witnessed with regard to the Church’s teaching on marital
relations. In both cases, the errors are driven fundamentally by a
disregard for how the ordinary magisterium illumines Catholic
teaching. It is truly only by disregarding everything the Church has
ever said about Casti Connubii and periodic continence that one
can maintain the sort of arguments that Crawford is advancing. As
we said back in Chapter One, when we ignore the ordinary
magisterium we ignore the vehicles of doctrinal explanation. And
that is, simply put, a very stupid thing to do.

And that’s not the only similarity. We’ve seen how far
astray a person can go in their understanding if they disdain (or
even just ignore) the fundamental scholastic principles that
underpin doctrinal explanations. Scholastic philosophy is one of
the Church’s richest treasures, and since its development by St.
Thomas it has permeated Catholic teaching at all levels. As Pope
St. Pius X said, this philosophy isn’t optional.

In this chapter we also saw more evidence of a tendency
we discussed in the last chapter: Even aside from ignoring the
ordinary magisterium and the Church’s philosophical tenets, when
Reverend Crawford doesn’t ignore something, he struggles to
accurately represent it. We saw this with Archbishop Murray’s

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 96

letter, which was not only plainly mis-read by Crawford but read
without any regard for its context whatsoever. We saw this same
disregard with Casti Connubii, which could only be presented with
excessive manipulations in order to support his arguments. In the
next chapter, we’ll further explore this theme and see the
shockingly unscrupulous lengths he’ll go to when manipulating
content to make it seem like it supports his views.

Summary

• We have shown that Reverend Crawford is perfectly
cognizant of the fact that he is rejecting Holy Office
teachings which Pope Pius IX said Catholics are bound to
accept.

• We’ve discussed the history of periodic continence, and
shown that from the earliest moment the Church was
aware of it she affirmed its morality, and that any and all
“prohibitions” on periodic continence were only prohibitions
on the scope of publicity Catholic teachers were allowed to
give it. It is that which Archbishop Murray’s letter decried,
not the morality of the system as such.

• But we also dove much deeper. We looked at Casti
Connubii and at what the Church’s teachers have said
about periodic continence, including what its ghost-writer
Fr. Vermeersch said about it, and there’s simply no
controversy whatsoever as to whether or not it can be
lawful.

• We explored in basic depth that Casti Connubii specifically
condemns that which is intrinsically against nature, while
showing that extrinsic considerations (like motives,
subjective purposes, intentions, etc.,) have no bearing on
the nature of an act whatsoever, and that even if periodic
continence was used unlawfully, it would be a sin against
marriage, not against nature.

• But periodic continence is certainly capable of being used
lawfully. If the Church’s continued affirmation (including
Pope Pius XI’s affirmation, only a year and a half after
publishing Casti Connubii ) of it was not enough proof of
this, we discussed how procreation is an affirmative
precept, whilst the proscription against contraception is a

Contra Crawford, Chapter Five: On Periodic Continence 97

negative precept; the former does not bind for all people in
all situations, while the latter does. Catholics are not
bound under all circumstances to procreate, they are
merely bound under all circumstances to not frustrate the
nature of the marital act.

• It is of course possible that periodic continence can be
abused, but abuses are just that— abuses— and the Church
has always been very solicitous in guarding against those
abuses.

• We also considered Reverend Crawford’s claims that
periodic continence in some way is contrary to providence,
because man cannot have control over life and death—we
took this idea and teased out the truly absurd conclusions
it leads to, and showed that what he calls trust in
providence is much closer to the sin of presumption than it
is to a legitimately pious trust in God.

• And finally, we engaged the “quotes” he provided from
Casti Connubii and showed that when he is not
fundamentally misunderstanding them, he is manipulating
them to say things which, when the context is added back
in, they clearly never said.

Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain Rhetoric
Passed off as "Catholic Teaching"

Introduction

By this point we have more or less concluded our defense
of baptism of desire and periodic continence. What still remains,
though, is to provide a thorough commentary and criticism of
Reverend Crawford’s scholarship. Scholarship refers to an
author’s ability to reliably and accurately represent the material he
is using. As such, it directly reflects on an author’s credibility and
trustworthiness.

Scholarship is especially important when one’s argument
touches on the Catholic faith. Catholics are authority- based, so
any argument intended to sway Catholics should be one that is
well documented and supported by the Church and her pastors.
And given that there is nothing more important to human
knowledge than the Catholic faith, the burden of sound
scholarship intensifies in this context. To misrepresent, alter, or
otherwise adjust source material for one’s own purpose is
particularly heinous when that source material is Catholic
teaching.

Unfortunately, Reverend Crawford has done exactly that,
and with startling consistency throughout his Untitled Booklet. We
have already seen a preview of some of these scholarly errors—in
Chapter Four we noticed that he not only mis-cited Church Fathers,
but read them without any regard for their historical context and
even read them without any regard for intertextual context. And in
Chapter Five we saw how he lifted parts of Casti Connubii out of
context, gave them a new context, and then stitched them
together to make a new argument.

In this chapter we have selected a variety of additional
errors to analyze. These errors are of varying significance.
Reverend Crawford misrepresents material in many different ways,
so we hope to provide examples of each “type” of
misrepresentation so that readers can have an idea of what to
look out for if he ever publishes another booklet. Some
misrepresentations are seemingly innocuous, like attributing a
quote to the wrong author. Others are subtle but decisively
misleading in effect, like taking a quote to be a statement about

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 100

baptism when the author’s purpose for writing had nothing at all to
do with baptism. And still other misrepresentations are wholly
fraudulent, removing crucial context or even just outright making
things up.

This is by no means an exhaustive critique of his
scholarship, and we’ve refrained from offering a complete criticism
simply because that would require its own book.

Inattentiveness and Mis-citations: Unam Sanctam and St. Thomas

Before getting into the more offensive misrepresentations,
we’ll start off with a few “softball” mistakes. These mainly involve
Reverend Crawford not citing his material correctly. Some might
misunderstand citations as being only necessary for “skeptics.”

But even the most ancient of the Church Fathers cited their
sources, and it is the custom of ecumenical councils, papal
encyclicals, and all of the theologians to cite theirs as well. Flaving
a citation serves multiple purposes: it testifies to the fact that the
author actually read the material that he should have read in order
to have an informed opinion on the matter he’s discussing. It also
provides the reader a way to verify that the quoted content is
represented accurately and contextually. And probably most
importantly it provides the reader an opportunity to learn more. If
an author makes some claim or another and then supports it with
a citation to an authority, it is ideal for the reader to be able to
then go read that authority to deepen their understanding.

An incorrect citation is usually the result of inattentiveness
to one’s source material, or a lack of rigor in research. To that
end, we see Reverend Crawford misattributing Unam Sanctam
(1302) multiple times. Fie thrice cites it as being written by Pope
Pius IX (pp. 8, 17, & 50). But Pius IX lived almost six hundred
years after Unam Sanctam, so we’re really not sure how this
mistake could be made so consistently. Fie once almost cites it
correctly, attributing it to “Pope Boniface” (pp. 27 & 40). Unam
Sanctam was written by Pope Boniface VIII (Denz. 468-9).

Another incorrect citation is a quote about invincible
ignorance on page 31 which he attributes merely to “St. Thomas
Aquinas.” St. Thomas is so important to Catholic theology that he

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 101

literally has his own citation convention which authors are
expected to use when referring to his work (Crawford is clearly
aware of this, since he actually uses that convention later on page
34). So we’re not sure why he wouldn’t use that convention with
the quote on page 31. Perhaps because St. Thomas never said
the quote on page 31. That quote is ver batim from Fr. Michael
Mueller’s (1875) adapted Familiar Explanation of Christian
Doctrine (p. 108). Maybe Reverend Crawford was just going by
memory on that one.

What’s the Point? Pope St. Leo the Great

Reverend Crawford cites Pope St. Leo the Great’s teaching
at the Council of Chalcedon several times throughout his work (pp.
4, 27, 41, & 49). The context of the teaching 39 concerns the
monastic Eutyches, who in denouncing the heresies of Nestorius,
originated a unique flavor of monophysitism, denying that Christ
was man (Chapman, 1909). So right away the context tells us that
the pope isn’t teaching us about baptism, but about Christ’s
nature.

The small section Crawford picked out is part of a larger
section where Leo uses baptism as an instructional metaphor to
explain the union of Christ’s natures. Christ's flesh was real, and he
suffered as man, in this real flesh. His body was real matter, yet in
undivided unity with the Godhead. St. Leo uses the sacrament of
Baptism as a comparison, showing that it involves real matter. The
water of baptism, the matter in the sacrament, is in undivided unity
with the spirit of sanctification and blood of redemption in the
sacrament when it is properly conferred and received.

39 This material is actually from a letter Pope St. Leo wrote to the bishop Flavian; it
was read at Chalcedon but existed prior to it.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 102

Crawford’s Quote of Pope St.
Leo the Great

Pope St. Leo the Great’s Letter to
Bishop Flavian/Council of
Chalcedon

“There are three that bear
witness: the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood; and
these three are one” (1 John

5:8). This means the Spirit of
sanctification, and the blood of
redemption, and the water of
Baptism, which three things
are one and remain undivided,
and not one of them is
separated from union with the
others.” (Emphasis retained,
cited by Crawford as “Council
of Chalcedon 1”).

Let [Eutyches, the heretic] listen
also to the blessed Apostle Peter
proclaiming that the sanctification
of the Spirit effected by the
sprinkling of the blood of Christ. And
let him read attentively the same
Apostle’s words... [quotes from Pet.

1, 2; Pet. 1. 13; 1 John]... the spirit,
that is, of sanctification, and the
blood of redemption, and the water
of baptism, which three are one,
and continue inseparable, and no
one of them is severed from its
connexion with the others: because
by this faith the Catholic Church
lives, by this makes increase, that in
Christ Jesus, neither the manhood
is believed without very Godhead,
nor the Godhead without very
manhood (Trans. Heurtely, 1885,
pp. 27-8, see also Denz. 143-4).

So the first problem with this quote, as Crawford uses it, is
that he’s simply selected a sentence that sounds good for his case
without any regard for its actual purpose. But even if the quote
existed in a vacuum, it would not make any sense to interpret its
sense as an assertion that none of these things could ever exist
without the other. What of St. John the Baptist’s baptisms, which
occurred before there even was a redemption? What of baptism
simulated through the withholding of intention or use of incorrect
formula? The water is still connected to the redemption but there
is no sanctification. 40 These are the silly conclusions we are left
with, though, when the whole purpose of Pope Leo’s quote is set
aside.

40 And Crawford even argued this very thing earlier, so how can he read Pope St. Leo
this way?

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 103

Crawford gives a similar reading to another quote he uses
from St. Leo. This quote is cited as coming from “Epistle XV: 10”
(cited in Crawford pp. 21, 33, & 53). This citation is incorrect,
although it’s pretty close. The material is from Epistle 15 (XV) but
it’s St. Leo’s 11 th chapter/paragraph, written in response to the
Priscillians 10 th error.

Which naturally brings us to the context of the letter. Epistle
15 is a lengthy letter to Bishop Turribius in Spain regarding
Priscillianism, a sort of gnostic, quasi-Manichaean heresy in
Patristic Iberia (Healy, 1911). The quoted material is in response
to the Priscil Man error that souls are conceived of the Holy Ghost
and exist in some spiritual hyper-astrological realm prior to being
infused in the human body (the Priscillians had bizarre beliefs).

The quote Crawford has taken is St. Leo leveraging a proof from
scripture to combat that. What Crawford provides is not even a full
sentence, let alone does he retain the greater context of and
motivation for St. Leo’s letter:

Crawford’s (Second) Quote of
Pope St. Leo

Pope St. Leo the Great’s
Epistle XV, Ch. 11: to Bishop
Turribius concerning the
Priscillians

“Since by the transgression of
the first man, the whole
progeny of the human race is
vitiated: no one can be freed
from the condition of the old
man except by the sacrament
of the Baptism of Christ.”

(Cited by Crawford as “Epistle

XV: 10”).

This blasphemous fable [of the
Priscillianists, that human
souls existed in some ethereal
domain before being infused
by God into the body at
conception] they have woven
for themselves out of many
persons' errors : but all of them
the Catholic Faith cuts off from
union with its body,
persistently and truthfully
proclaiming that men's souls
did not exist until they were
breathed into their bodies, and
that they were not there
implanted by any other than

God, who is the creator both of

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain

Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" _104

the souls and of the bodies.

And because through the
transgression of the first man
the whole stock of the human
race was tainted, no one can
be set free from the state of
the old Adam save through
Christ's sacrament of baptism,
in which there are no
distinctions between the re¬
born, as says the Apostle [Gal.
3:27-8], What then have the
course of the stars to do with
it, or the devices of destiny?
What the changing state of
mundane things and their
restless diversity? (Trans. Lett
Feltoe, 1895).

If we want to know what the Church teaches about baptism
or baptism of desire, we should learn from teaching efforts that
are, well, about baptism or baptism of desire. Baptism is not the
point of either of Pope St. Leo’s letters. In neither letter does the
pope even obliquely attempt to provide lessons on baptism.
Reverend Crawford just gathers ancillary mentions, plucking them
out of purpose and context to support an agenda— which is
something he should not have to do if his doctrine were as obvious
and perennial as he claims.

“Only One” Problem—Additions to Pope Clement V’s Teaching

A quote from Pope Clement V at the Council of Vienne
(1311-12) is cited by Reverend Crawford ubiquitously (pp. 5, 15,
25, 27, 33, 35, 41, & 49). He tells us it reads:

Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who are
baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all, just
as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5), which is
celebrated in water in the name of Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost (Denz. 482) (Crawford, p. 5,
emphasis retained).

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 105

The “only” problem is that the word “only” is Reverend Crawford’s
own addition. Pope Clement never used it.

Now suppose he’d actually quoted this teaching “as it reads”
instead of by embellishing it. Quoting from Vienne would be
hypocritically selective, and the more and more context one adds
into Pope Clement’s quote, the worse it looks for Reverend
Crawford:

Crawford’s Quote of Pope
Clement V at the Council of
Vienne

Pope Clement V at the Council
of Vienne

Besides, only one Baptism
which regenerates all who are
baptized in Christ must be
faithfully confessed by all, just
as there is “one God and one
faith” (Eph. 4:5), which is
celebrated in water in the
name of Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost.

(emphasis retained, Cited by
Crawford as Denz. 482)

Besides, one baptism which
regenerates all who are
baptized in Christ must be
faithfully confessed by all just
as "one God and one faith"

[Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in
water in the name of the

Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit we believe to be
commonly the perfect remedy
for salvation for adults as for
children.

[Some have argued that
baptized infants have sin
remitted but not grace or
virtues conferred] We,
however, considering the
general efficacy of the death of
Christ, which through baptism
is applied equally to all the
baptized, with the approval of
the sacred council, consider
the second opinion to be
preferred, which says that
forming grace and virtue are
conferred on children as on
adults, as more probable,

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain

Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" _106

more consonant and more in
agreement with the words of
the saints and the modern
doctors of theology. (Denz.
482-83)

As before with Pope St. Leo the Great, Reverend Crawford
has missed the point. Pope Clement’s reference to “one baptism”
isn’t him teaching against baptism of desire. The point of
contention is whether or not baptized infants have the three
theological virtues infused as habits. And Pope Clement says that
they do, since the baptism administered to infants is the same as
the baptism administered to adults. He’s not teaching that there’s
no baptism of desire, he’s teaching that water baptism received by
infants is the same as water baptism received by adults.

And that’s not all. Notice Pope Clement’s reasoning for
favoring this doctrine. He approves of it because it is “more
consonant and more in agreement with the words of the saints
and the modern doctors of theology.” Not because, as Reverend
Crawford might put it, “The Supreme Court of the Church has
spoken.” Pope Clement’s rule of faith is antithetical to Crawford’s.
He has no business relying on Pope Clement to support what he
has to say. They don’t even agree on what counts for Catholic
teaching.

Franken-Augustine: Reassembling the Doctor of Grace

Next up is a five-sentence paragraph which Crawford cites
as coming from St. Augustine “On John XIII, tract VII” (cited in
Crawford, p. 38). This quote is an irreverent chop-job. For
starters, it’s not from “John XIII, tract VII” because there is no
“John XIII, tract VII” in Augustine’s corpus. But that’s a minor
point, the real problem with this “quote” is that of the five
sentences, only two are even from the same work! This whole
“quote” is just a bunch of sentences strung together from different
places. We will summarize what our research uncovered as the
“real” sources of each sentence 41 . Readers may also refer to the
table on the next page for a visual representation.

41 After completing our research on this quote, we realized that Griff Ruby (2008)
performed similar research, albeit a slightly different “version” of it. Ruby found the quote

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 107

The source of the first sentence has been very difficult to
track down. Writing for Saint Benedict’s Center, Brian Kelly (2011)
asserts that the first sentence is from Frits Van Der Meer’s (1961)
book Augustine the Bishop but it is unclear if the sentence is
actually a quote from Augustine or a quote from Van Der Meer.
Without access to the title we can’t be sure what the context of the
sentence is, or whether or not Augustine actually said it.

The second and third sentences can be found in various
places, probably most notably in Jurgens’ patrology set, The Faith
of the Early Fathers. Jurgens says that the material came from a
combination of Migne’s Patrologies (which are a reprint of the
Maurist) and also Lambot, although he doesn’t specify which
material came from which source, and in either event Migne and
Lambot are in Greek and Latin so they’d hardly be of much use for
our purposes—besides, we doubt Reverend Crawford dove that
deep just to fake a quote. Now, the fourth sentence cannot be
sourced at all; it is often quoted by anonymous Internet users as
coming from Jurgens, but it doesn’t. We’ve been unable to track
down this sentence in any patrology or collection of St. Augustine’s
work. If it exists at all, it certainly doesn’t exist as part of the two
sentences found in Jurgens.

The last sentence of the quote is from St. Augustine’s commentary
on John Chapter 3, Tractate 13, paragraph 7. This is the only
sentence for which we are able to provide any considerable
context. For ease of summary and illustration, we present the
following table: Note that for the last sentence of the paragraph,
context makes it clear that St. Augustine is referring to prideful
and disingenuous catechumens.

from Richard Ibranyi, which is possibly where Reverend Crawford got it—or not. It’s a
quote that’s “made the rounds” on the Internet, with everyone offering different versions of
and citations for it.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 108

Patristic Scavenger Hunt

Crawford quoted St.
Augustine as saying...

The quote is
actually from...

Actual Quote with
context:

First

Sentence:

“How many
sincere
catechumens
die

unbaptized,
and are thus
lost forever.

No one knows,
possibly a 1961
book called
Augustine The
Bishop by a Fr.

Van Der Meer.

May or may not
actually be the
words of
Augustine.

None

Second and
Third

Sentence:

When we
come into the
sight of God,
no one will
say, ‘Why was
this man led
by God’s
direction to
be baptized,
while that

man,

although he
lived properly
as a

catechumen,
was killed in
a sudden
disaster and
not baptized?
Look for
rewards, and
you will find
nothing but
punishment.

Jurgens, who
cites Migne and
Lambot,

although without
distinguishing
from where each
segment came.

When we come
into the sight of
God, no one will
say, ‘Why was this
man led by God’s
direction to be
baptized, while
that man,
although he lived
properly as a
catechumen, was
killed in a sudden
disaster and not
baptized?... Look
for deserts, and
you will find
nothing but
punishment. Look
for grace: “0,
sublimity of riches
(5)!” Peter denies,
the thief believes.
“0, sublimity of
riches!” (Jurgens
1970, vol. 3, p.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 109

26, §1496, all
ellipses retained])

Crawford quoted St.
Augustine as saying...

The quote is
actually from...

Actual Quote with
context:

Fourth

Sentence:

Of what use
would
repentance
be, if Baptism
did not
follow?

No one knows.

None

Fifth

Sentence:

No matter
what

progress a
catechumen
may make,
he still
carries the
burden of
iniquity, and
it is not taken
away until he
has been
baptized.”

On John 3, tract
13, §7

...Lest any man,
arrogating to
himself that he
has abundance of
some particular
grace, should
disdain to be
baptized with the
baptism of the

Lord. For whatever
the catechumen's
proficiency, he still
carries the load of
his iniquity: it is
not forgiven him
until he shall have
come to baptism.
Just as the people
Israel were not rid
of the Egyptians
until they had
come to the Red
Sea, so no man is
rid of the pressure
of sins until he
has come to the
font of baptism.

(On John 3,

Tractate 13, §7).

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 110

As is obvious, this “quote” is not a quote. Ironically though, the
illegitimacy of this “quote” actually works in Reverend Crawford’s
favor. Only a few pages earlier he replied to Bishop Pivarunas’s
question about how St. Thomas’s work could be officially approved
by the Church as the norm of priestly formation when he erred on
what was necessary for salvation (Crawford pp. 33-4; Appendix A,

Q. 15). Crawford’s explanation included, in part, this reference to
Pope Alexander Vlll’s (1690) Holy Office condemnation of the
Jansenists:

[Condemned proposition of the Jansenists, no. 30] When

anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he

can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of

the pope, (this is condemned) (Crawford, p. 34).

Crawford’s point being that if the pope issues a bull about
something, you can’t argue against it by quoting a Doctor of the
Church 42 . But why is he even providing the fraudulent quote from
St. Augustine in the first place? As a way of arguing against Pope
Gregory XVI’s canonization bull of St. Alphonsus Liguori! 43 But we
suppose that Pope Alexander’s condemnation—if it “reads as its
written”— only applies to those who resist papal bulls by holding to
things St. Augustine actually said.

A “Foolish” Omission: Pope St. Innocent I

Another quote put on the chopping block is a quote
attributed to Pope St. Innocent I’s Epistle 29. Reverend Crawford
says that Pope St. Innocent “declared That the rewards of eternal
life are given without baptism is very foolish’” (pp. 5, 42, & 52).
Which is strange, since popes do not declare, in the relevant
sense, anything in their epistles. Epistles are letters, usually to
individuals. We advise our readers to be wary of loose language
like this—something Crawford does elsewhere, too—since it
(wrongly) implies that the statement might have an ex cathedra
quality.

42 We’d be remiss not to point out that reading this canon as though it applied to any
doctor violates Reverend Crawford’s rule of faith. If solemn teaching “reads as its written”
then he can hardly enlarge the canon to include St. Thomas when it only mentions St.
Augustine.

43 Which, as a reminder, taught that Catholics may read St. Alphonsus’s work (which
includes baptism of desire) without even the slightest fear of encountering error.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 111

Pope St. Innocent I didn’t declare or even say anything of
the sort in Epistle 29. Reverend Crawford has mis-cited it, he
should have cited it as Epistle 30. But he might as well have cited
it as “Epistle from Mars” given that his “version” of the quote
bears virtually no resemblance at all to what Pope St. Innocent
actually said:

Crawford’s quote of Pope St.
Innocent 1, Mis-cited as “Epistle
29”

Pope St. Innocent 1, Epistle 30

That the rewards of eternal life
are given without baptism is
very foolish, (cited by Crawford
as “Epistle 29”)

But that which Your Fraternity
asserts the Pelagians preach,
that even without the grace of
Baptism infants are able to be
endowed with the rewards of
eternal life, is quite idiotic.

(cited in Jurgens, Vol. 3, p.

182, §2016)

What Pope St. Innocent actually said is utterly irrelevant to
the baptism of desire debate. Crawford’s version of the quote is a
complete fabrication. He’s emptied the letter of its point and
rearranged it to make a different point.

The Curious Allocution: Pope Pius XII

Next up is an especially curious misquote of Pope Pius XII,
found at the bottom of page 33 and moving to the top of page 34.
The first thing to notice is that Reverend Crawford is using that
loose language again, saying that the pope “declared” in an
allocution. Popes do not “declare” in allocutions, not in the
relevant sense. Moreover, the inclusion of this quote is selective
at best. Crawford rejects Pius Xll’s allocution to the midwives, so
why he would think there’s any value in a papal allocution, never
mind a papal allocution from a pope who’s used allocutions to
teach error (according to Crawford’s argument), is beyond us.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 112

Crawford’s Pope Pius XII
1953 Allocution Quote

Pope Pius XII1953 Allocution at the
Gregorian

The Church has never
accepted even the most
holy and most eminent
Doctors, and does not
now accept even a single
one of them, as the
principal source of truth.
The Church certainly
considers Thomas and
Augustine great Doctors,
and she accords them the
highest praise; but, by
divine mandate, the
interpreter and guardian
of the Sacred Scriptures
and depository of Sacred
Tradition living within her,
the Church alone is the
entrance to salvation; she
alone, by herself, and
under the protection and
guidance of the Holy

Ghost, is the source of
truth.’ (Cited by Crawford
as: Gregorian University,
Oct. 17,1953; PTC 1351)

All. To the students of the Gregorian,
October 17, 1953 (The Fourth centenary
of the University. -Historic aspect—
Scholastic method. - Speculative studies
and positive sciences)

No one of these disciplines or sciences
constitutes an entrance into the Church;
with all the more reason would it be false
to assert that there is only one single
door to enter by.

Even the most holy and the most
eminent Doctor, the Church never has
accepted, and does not now accept as
the principal source of truth. Certainly,
she considers Thomas and Augustine
great Doctors, and she accords them the
highest praise; but she recognizes
infallibility only in the inspired authors of
the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate
the interpreter and guardian of the

Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred
Tradition, living within her, the Church
alone is the entrance to salvation, she
alone, by herself, and under the
protection and guidance of the Holy

Spirit, is the source of truth. ( Papal
Teachings: The Church, Vol. 2, 1962, p.
695, §1351, all formatting retained)

As is our custom, we recommend noting the context first.
The heading from “PTC” (the book Reverend Crawford says he got
the quote from) makes the allocution’s context very clear: it’s
delivered to students of the natural and historical sciences, and as
we keep reading it’s clear that the point of the allocution is to
exhort them to humility and to not assume that they understand

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 113

what they’re reading (a rather ironic point; we can understand why
Crawford trimmed this).

Continuing with the context, another part of the quote cut
by Crawford is when Pope Pius XII says that the Church
“recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred
Scriptures.” Well, that’s not true, is it? Take that in a vacuum and
it’s plainly wrong. But it wasn’t said in a vacuum, and the context
makes it clear that he’s talking to the students about scripture 44 ,
and what he’s saying is that scripture is wholly inerrant, while the
doctors and fathers are not. So here’s a great example and
reminder of how a quote’s meaning might seem to be one thing
when it’s read without knowing why it was said and under what
conditions and for what purpose, but then when contextualized it
means something else 45 .

Our third observation about the differences between the
actual quote and Reverend Crawford’s version of it has nothing to
do with the actual content but with the formatting and punctuation
of it. One might not notice at first glance, but even where Crawford
hasn’t changed the meaning, he’s changed the formatting.
Crawford combines the last two sentences into a single sentence
and uses fairly advanced grammar and syntax to hold it all
together and maintain its intelligibility. A strange thing to happen
by accident or through carelessness. But we mention it for a
reason, and beg the reader’s patience—once we conclude our
analysis of his quotes it will be clear why this deviation from his
alleged source material is important.

Making no Distinctions where Distinctions are Made: Pope Leo XIII

Of all the material misrepresented by Reverend Crawford,
it’s a little difficult to “rank” the severity of the different errors he
makes, but if we tried, this quote from Pope Leo XIII on page 17

44 One of the main controversies the Church was facing at this time was the spread of
Darwinism and positivism in general; Catholic students and even some teachers began to read
scripture in an unorthodox way—students of history and the natural sciences were especially
susceptible to falling into these types of errors.

45 Crawford’s omission of this sentence does not alter the sense of the overall quote any
more than his previous omissions already had; we merely re-introduce the quote as a great
example of how removing context can render the meaning of source material as something
completely different than what was intended or purposed by the author.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 114

would be a contender for the most egregious. Crawford presents a
short and sweet quote from Pope Leo’s Satis Cognitum, a quote
which he provides as though it was establishing a rule of faith with
righteous and holy indignation. But just trying to find Crawford’s

version of the quote in what Pope Leo actually said is like playing
“Where’s Waldo: Papal Encyclical Version.” Are readers up for the
challenge?

Crawford’s
Quote of Pope
Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum

Pope Leo Xlll’s Satis Cognitum

You ask how 1
prove this?

From the very
words of the

Lord! We can
make no
exceptions
where no
distinction is
made. (Cited by
Crawford as
“Satis

Cognitum”)

Who art thou? The great priest - the high
priest. Thou art the Prince of Bishops and the
heir of the Apostles.... Thou art he to whom
the keys were given. There are, it is true,
other gatekeepers of heaven and to pastors
of flocks, but thou are so much the more
glorious as thou hast inherited a different and
more glorious name than all the rest. They
have flocks consigned to them, one to each;
to thee all the flocks are confided as one
flock to one shepherd, and not alone the
sheep, but the shepherds. You ask how 1
prove this? From the words of the Lord. To
which - 1 do not say - of the Bishops, but
even of the Apostles have all the sheep been
so absolutely and unreservedly committed? If
thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which
sheep? Of this or that country, or kingdom?

My sheep, He says: to whom therefore is it
not evident that he does not designate some,
but all? We can make no exception where no
distinction is made. (St. Bernard, quoted by
Pope Leo XIII, 1896, in Satis Cognitum,

§15.3, ellipses retained).

We adopt a posture of levity in presenting this quote
because what’s been done to it is so disgraceful that crying or
cursing are really the only alternatives to laughing. This quote:

• Is in Pope Leo’s encyclical, but not a word of it is actually
original to Leo, the whole thing is him quoting St. Bernard.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 115

• Has an extremely narrow and specific focus, not a broad
one as is implied by the way Crawford mangled it.

o That focus is aimed at the pope’s jurisdiction
exclusively

• And the “distinction” not made is over Christ’s instruction to
“feed my sheep”, which St. Bernard says is a proof that the
pope, unlike other bishops, is designated to govern the
whole flock.

So we are faced with broad omissions of context which amount to
a violent removal of context, accompanied by a new artificial
context. No ellipses are given to even indicate that this text was
chopped up. Crawford has completely altered the sense of this
quote, and we’re sure Pope Leo wouldn’t even recognize it.

A not so “Innocent” Omission: Pope Innocent III

Reverend Crawford gives the “Pope Leo treatment” to Pope
Innocent III as well. This happens on page 42 of his Untitled
Booklet. We’ll get right to the quote:

Crawford’s Quote
of Pope Innocent
III

Pope Innocent III, Letter to the Archbishop of
Nidaros

In Baptism, two
things are always
and necessarily
required,
namely: the
words and the
element
(water)... You
ought not to
doubt that they
do not have true
baptism in which
one of them is
missing. (Cited
by Crawford as
Denz. 412).

You have asked whether children ought to be
regarded as Christians whom, when in
danger of death, on account of the scarcity
of water and the absence of a priest, the
simplicity of some has anointed on the head
and the breast, and between the shoulders
with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism. We
answer that since in baptism two things
always, that is, "the word and the element,"*
are required by necessity, according to which
Truth says concerning the word: "Going into
the world etc." And the same concerning the
element says: "Unless anyone etc." [John

3:5] you ought not to doubt that those do not
have true baptism in which not only both of
the above mentioned (requirements) but one
of them is missing. (Denz. 412)

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 116

Is any commentary even necessary on the two different “versions”
of this quote? Pope Innocent Ill’s letter is teaching that water, not
spit, is the correct matter for baptism. It’s disingenuous to prop
this up as an argument against baptism of desire.

Regarding Quotes about Water

On the heels of Innocent Ill’s letter it is fitting to say a few
words about similar quotes (whether used by Crawford or others
who write similar works), where the necessity of water is
emphasized. Throughout Catholic history, there have been
instances where clerics have asked whether, due to the scarcity of
water, beer or saliva could be used in sacramental baptism (Denz.
412 & 447); or whether or not the use of oils was required for
validity (Denz. 449 & 542); or whether or not the temperature of
the water affected the validity of baptism (Denz. 449 & 696); or,
whether or not baptism was only valid if done by a certain amount
of immersions (Denz. 229); or, whether or not baptism required
any water at all, given the Protestant doctrine that John 3:5 was,
indeed, merely a metaphor: i.e., that baptism didn’t do anything
(Denz. 858); or, whether or not water with a certain amount of
chemical mixtures would be valid (Denz. 1977). Such questions—
about which there have been many throughout Church history—are
simply unconcerned with baptism of desire, they’re focused on a
sacramental question of what constitutes the necessary matter for
a valid baptism. Such teachings are no more a denial of baptism
of desire than teachings that only a priest can validly absolve sins
are a denial of perfect contrition.

What Happened?

When we began to compose this work we knew that we
disagreed with Reverend Crawford, but we never imagined that a
significant part of our response would entail correcting truly
fraudulent material packed into vain rhetoric passed off as “Catholic
teaching.” With all the eloquent waxing about learning “directly
from the top” and reading “The Supreme Court of the Church’s”
decisions “as they were written,” one would expect Reverend
Crawford to do exactly that. His Untitled Booklet is his opportunity
to not only prove the soundness of his doctrine, but to show that the
way he reached his conclusions (i.e., his rule of faith) is tenable and
sound. But when he’s not telling us that teachings came from

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 117

ecumenical councils when they didn’t, or implying that his papal
sources are teaching us about baptism when they aren’t, he can
only maintain his views by taking a ball point pen and a bottle of
white out to the very decrees he insists we should be learning from.

And we have only surveyed a selection of these such errors.
There were other quotes that suffered from similar problems. For
example, his quotes from Pope Pius Xll’s Mediator Dei (pp. 6 & 53)
and Mystici Corporis Christi (pp. 5, 6, & 52), his quote from Pope
Leo IV/The Council of Valence (pp. 4, 21, 25, 27, 35, 41, & 48), his
quote from Cantate Domino (pp. 16 & 51), another quote from St.
Augustine (p. 31), and many others suffer from omissions,
additions, excessive ellipses, and context removals. The closer one
looks, the worse it gets.

A Pupil, not a Mastermind

Having exhaustively researched every single quote
Reverend Crawford used, our own opinion is that he didn’t actually
cut up these texts himself, or at least not most of them. There
were a few idiosyncrasies that provided enough information to
eventually track down the real sources Reverend Crawford is
relying on. These include Michael Malone’s (1987) The Apostolic
Digest and Adam Miller’s (2010) Life-Giving Waters. Reverend
Crawford—to his benefit or detriment, we’re not really sure which—
appears to be simply copying quotes from the books of these two
laymen.

We were first “clued in” to this fact when we realized that
nearly every single one of Crawford’s thirty-odd quotes from
Denzinger didn’t actually align with the phraseology used in
Denzinger 46 . Yet with near invariable consistency, Crawford’s
quotes from Denzinger matched up perfectly with what Miller and
Malone attribute to Denzinger 47 . But there was much more
evidence as well, like the fact that many of Reverend Crawford’s

46 Such inconsistency cannot be attributed to different translations, since there’s only
one pre-conciliar English translation of Denzinger (by Defarrari). So while lots of different
publishing houses have produced Denzinger reprints, every reprint is identical in its
translation.

47 We suspect that Miller and Malone are using the Novus Ordo Denzinger, which is
why their phraseology does not align with the traditional Denzinger translation.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 118

errors—some of them quite unique, like the strange but
grammatically advanced mis-transcription of Pope Pius Xll’s 1953
allocution—are identical to errors made by Malone and Miller. For
instance:

• Both Malone and Miller have the exact same (fraudulent)
quote from Pope St. Innocent I, and both mis-cite it as
“Epistle 29” instead of Epistle 30, and both curiously use
the word “foolish” (most translations say “silly” or
“idiotic”—we could not find an approved Catholic
translation that used the word “foolish”) (Malone, p. 275;
Miller p. 54).

• Both Malone and Miller add the word “only” to Pope
Clement V’s teaching at the Council of Vienne (Malone p.
298; Miller p. 13).

• Both Malone and Miller have the fraudulent “You ask how I
can prove this” quote, both ascribe it to Pope Leo XIII
(neither mention the quote is actually St. Bernard), and
both use it in a similar way to Crawford (Malone, p. 274;
Miller, p. 50).

• Miller uses the same grammatically advanced mis¬
transcription of Pope Pius Xll’s Allocution. All added
commas, semi-colons, etc. are identical to Crawford’s. In
fact, Miller signals it in the exact same way, stating that
the Pope “declared in an allocution” (Miller, p. 52).

Another smoking gun which shows that Reverend Crawford is
relying heavily on Malone and Miller is that he frequently cites
“PTC” as a source for his material. But we doubt that Reverend
Crawford owns this book. “PTC” is an acronym that, so far as we
can tell, was invented by Michael Malone to indicate the (1962)
book Papal Teachings: The Church. This book was originally
compiled by Benedictine Monks in France. In 1962 it was
translated to English somewhat unusually by a female religious in
Boston, Mother O’Gorman. It was censored by a certain Rev.
Matthew Stapleton, who appears to have been an ecumenist of
the highest order, leading conferences in the late sixties where he
explained to Catholics that they could attend synagogues if they
were invited (Portsmouth Herald, 1969). And this all leads us to
the punchline, which is that the book’s imprimatur was given by

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 119

none other than Richard Cushing 48 . Now, it requires a suspension
of disbelief for us to suppose that Reverend Crawford would
knowingly own and learn from a book which only exists because
Richard Cushing allowed it to be printed.

Miller and Malone both cite PTC regularly 49 . They always just
call it “PTC”, and one has to dig through Malone’s cryptic
references section to even find out what “PTC” means. So we
figure that when Crawford was transcribing material from Miller
and Malone, he just kept the “PTC” citation wherever it came up
and never looked into it. If only he applied the same suspicion with
which he views the ordinary magisterium to these laymen!

Our readers are Catholic. They have a right to know where
allegedly “Catholic” material is coming from. So it’s necessary to
quickly provide an expose on Reverend Crawford’s teachers so
that Catholics know to stay far, far away.

Michael Malone and Adam Miller

Michael Malone’s The Apostolic Digest is full of mistakes
and scholarly faux-pas. When editing the “definitive edition” he
describes how earlier editions didn't have any references at all.

He only begrudgingly added references later, and at that, he
admits that he’s not even sure if they’re correct. It was difficult for
him to go back and add references because his actual method of
composition included nothing more than him recording notes on
“some good books” he’d read over the years, and then translating
those notes to printed form.

We’re sure that if one of our readers picked up a notebook
on the side of the road with a bunch of hand-scribbled quotes
attributed to different popes they wouldn’t pump their fist in the air
and say “at last! I’ve found what the Church teaches!” They’d be

48 We suspect that most readers—or at least, those who disagree with us—know who
Richard Cushing was. For those who are unsure, Richard Cushing was the Archbishop of
Boston during the Fr. Feeney saga, and Cushing was principally responsible for butting heads
with Feeney and moving his case along to the Holy Office.

49 In fact, both authors rely on the same material to such a degree that for all intents and
purposes, anything Crawford appears to have pulled from Malone he just as likely could have
pulled from Miller, and vice versa.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 120

incredulous and they’d check the quotes. Or, they’d just throw it
away because they already have access to approved collections of
Catholic teaching. But at bottom, that’s all Michael Malone’s
Apostolic Digest is: a collection of a layman’s notes. We’re
certainly not the only ones to notice this. Confirmed reviewers of
the book have complained that

This book is laden with errors. Having researched some of
Malone's sources, one glaring example being quotes from
the III Council of Constantinople, it was discovered that
some quotes he list appear nowhere in the original text. I
went directly to the Latin primary sources at times and
these quotes were entirely missing. This is a dangerous
book for those not inclined or not able to individually verify
each quote and citation (C.F., from “Apostolic Digest Sales
Page” [Amazon] 2016)

Others pointed out the obvious:

I am a Traditional Catholic (NOT Novus Ordo) and I can say
that it is a horrible book — Malone doesn't understand the
nature of the authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the
Church, and is making it up as he goes along. If you have it,
you should just throw it away, (gsafreed, from “Apostolic
Digest Sales Page” [Amazon], 2018)

The Apostolic Digest is anything but apostolic, and it’s sure to
cause /'ndigestion.

It was to our great amusement to find that Michael Malone
uses more than seventy-five post-conciliar sources to argue for
EENS. And not just any post-conciliar sources—Malone cites John
XXIII ten times, Paul VI more than twenty times, John Paul II more
than twenty times, Vatican II five times, he even managed to find a
few quotes from John Paul I, and to top it all off he even cites the
Eucharistic prayer from the Novus Ordo— all in the general
defense of there being no salvation outside the Church! If one
needed proof that Malone is an author who takes material out of
context, determined to twist it to suit his own purposes, one
needn’t look any further.

Adam Miller’s credentials aren’t any better than Malone’s.
Miller is a high school teacher who runs “Tower of David
Publications” on the side. He describes his (2010) Life Giving

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 121

Waters as “an adult catechism on baptism with definitive
magisterial answers to questions” (p. 3). We think we hardly need
to point out that it is wholly presumptive of a layman to write a
catechism, never mind one with “definitive magisterial answers.”

In addition to his “catechism”, he’s also compiled his own faux-
Denzinger and even a defense of Paul Vi’s Novus Ordo Missae,
which he describes as

An in depth examination, critique, and refutation of
arguments put forth by radical Catholic traditionalists who
doubt or deny the validity of the New Rite of Mass
promulgated by Pope Paul VI. (Tower of David Publications,

2018, p. 1).

Not exactly the sort of resume one would hope their sedevacantist
“pastor” to place his trust in.

Bargain Bin Rule of Faith

We have demonstrated that Malone and Miller are not
trustworthy. The actual content of their work “speaks for itself”.
This is setting aside their actual conclusions— i.e., the fact that they
deny baptism of desire—and just looking at their methods, which
are equal parts laughable scholarship and just plain dishonesty.
Even if, per impossible, they were right in their conclusions—it
would be by accident, not design. The proven falsehoods they rely
on to make their case are too severe to take their work at face
value.

Those reasons alone make it lamentable that Malone and
Miller have found their way into Reverend Crawford’s Untitled
Booklet, since he’s now repeating and disseminating their lies—
whether he realizes it or not. But there’s an additional layer of
disingenuousness to the affair, and that’s the fact that Reverend
Crawford deemed these men to be appropriate sources of Catholic
Teaching in the first place. Amidst all the “learning from the top”
rhetoric, Reverend Crawford can’t even be hassled with opening a
proper copy of Denzinger. If he’s going to insist on his bogus rule
of faith, at least he could apply it in a way that’s somewhat
respectable. He’s instead going through the theological bargain
bin—and he’s getting ripped off. The rebukes he issues to those
who affirm baptism of desire—that we’re learning from “mere men”
and not the “Supreme Court of the Church”, or that we’re putting

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching" 122

the “law of man” ahead of the “law of God”—ring like a sounding
brass or a tinkling cymbal when his own learning method is laid
bare.

Conclusion and Summary

All toll, Reverend Crawford uses about seventy five unique
quotes in his booklet (many of the quotes are provided multiple
times, making it appear as though there are more). About half of
the quotes he cites are from Trent, Vatican I, or involve some
teaching or another regarding membership and salvation. Most of
these quotes we’ve already addressed elsewhere, with many being
addressed in Chapter Two, others being addressed in Chapter
Four, and of course the sources on periodic continence we
addressed in the last chapter. There’s no doubt that Reverend
Crawford misunderstands most of the material he gets his hands
on. But our focus in this chapter hasn’t been to correct
misunderstandings or to even discuss doctrine at all. Our focus
has been to expose blatant misrepresentations of Catholic source
material. To show that the misunderstandings themselves are
propped up and reinforced with fraudulent source material. This
includes falsely passing off epistles as though they were from
ecumenical councils; it includes adding words to ecumenical
councils that were never there; it includes patching together

disparate quotes from separate works to make “new” quotes; it
includes removing crucial information from quotes which, if
retained, makes the quotes irrelevant—if not actually contrary—to
Reverend Crawford’s purposes; it includes ripping apart, chopping
up, shredding, spray-painting, and then duct-taping quotes back
together.

We of course must disclaim the possibility that we’ve
misread the tea leaves: it’s theoretically possible that the bevy of
identical mistakes between Crawford, Malone, and Miller are all
just bizarre coincidences. Maybe instead of going to Michael
Malone and Adam Miller, Reverend Crawford just went “to the
Internet.” Maybe he got his material from anonymous posters
online, and in an unlikely coincidence, happened to only select
sources that converged with these authors. Or maybe his mother
or Neal Webster sent him an email with “some good quotes” and

Contra Crawford, Chapter Six: On Context: Or, Fraudulent Material and Vain
Rhetoric passed off as "Catholic Teaching” 123

he just ran with it. Or maybe he really did chop up all of these
quotes himself. Since he never bothered with a proper
bibliography so that Catholics could read the same things he was
reading, some doubt might always linger about exactly where he
got his material. But of one thing there is no doubt: he didn’t get it
from where he said he did 50 .

We hesitate to say Reverend Crawford knew he was relying
on fraudulent material—we doubt he did. This isn’t to absolve him
of using fraudulent material, but to properly contextualize his role
in the fraud as a hapless follower, not a leader. Having conducted
extensive research on all the material he uses, the impression we
get is that he simply went to authors whom he knew already
agreed with him and borrowed quotes from them that “looked
good.” He did this without any investigation as to whether or not
the material he was using was legitimate.

Despite his best attempt to instill skepticism toward the
Church and her ordinary teaching, and despite his best attempt to
romanticize the notion of a pure knowledge of the faith through
solemn teaching alone, Crawford’s own methods are excessively
credulous. He’s not even going to solemn teaching, but instead
relying on hacks like Miller and Malone to tell him what that
teaching is. Crawford has not done any of the heavy lifting. If he
had, maybe he would have noticed that the things he believes are
nowhere to be found.

Above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike,
give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any
opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any
quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less
efficiently by putting on His spirit (Vermeersch, 1913, §§5-6).

50 We say this as a general rule. We’re fairly certain that for Trent he (mostly) used the
Tan translation and he also appears to have relied on an approved edition of Trent’s
catechism as well. He didn’t get everything from Miller and Malone. By our estimation,
around half (possibly more) of his quotes come from there.

Chapter Seven: Conclusion: on Truth

A conclusion is supposed to be written in response to the
question “so what?” It is a chance for the authors to explain why
everything they said actually matters. This is a particularly relevant
question in the present context because debates over baptism of
desire (and even periodic continence, although to a lesser extent)
sometimes become reduced to a question of practical value.

Those who prefer to deny baptism of desire, having run out of
arguments (or maybe just in haste to conclude the debate), might
say something like “we’re all baptized, so why do these
hypotheticals about unbaptized catechumens matter?”

Such questions cannot be asked without assuming an anti-
Catholic view of truth. We are in the service of truth. Truth is not
in the service of us. And we’re sure readers need no reminder of
this. After all, it’s not like denying baptism of desire provides any
great convenience to a Catholic. On the contrary, it’s incredibly
difficult to deny baptism of desire. We do not deny that our
opponents have a great deal of rigor or zeal, nor do we deny that
they are prepared to make sacrifices in order to maintain their
views. All the more strange it is to us, then, when we hear them
resort to pragmatic arguments which silently assume that
something is only true if it is also useful.

Clearly, people have a tendency to keep believing what they
already believe. People will say unusual things, unbecoming
things, and uncharacteristic things in order to maintain that they
“have the truth.” We are literally made for the truth, our intellects
being directly ordered toward the recognition and apprehension of
it. It is, therefore, a great difficulty to recognize that one has been
wrong. It means that one has failed in their fundamental purpose.

Reverend Crawford’s Untitled Booklet is “exhibit A” in the
lengths to which a person will go to maintain that they are correct.
Let’s recall how the Council of Trent described the faith of the
justified catechumen:

Aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith by
hearing they are freely moved toward God, believing that to
be true which has been divinely revealed and promised
(Denz. 798)

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 126

This is plainly describing supernatural—not merely natural— faith.
But Reverend Crawford is willing to, at least in his own mind,
change the very definition of supernatural faith in order to
maintain his argument. He is willing to argue that the Church’s
laws are fallible, and therefore conducive to the injury of souls, in
order to maintain his argument. He will cite anything that makes it
seem like his argument is true. He cites the sixth century diocesan
laws of Braga, promulgated by eight bishops and no pope, as what
the Church “really” teaches. He digs up an old letter from
Archbishop Murray, reads into it words that aren’t there, and then
offers it as a proof of what the Church “really” teaches. All while
rebuking those who affirm baptism of desire for not “learning from
the top.” And then in the same breath relying on lay-authored
“Catechisms” and “Digests” to actually find out what that teaching
is. These are not the sorts of things that a person needs to do if
the truth is actually on their side. These are the sorts of things
that people do to conceal errors, not to expunge them.

Not everyone has the time, inclination, or ability to deeply
analyze any given controversy. It is fairly natural to simply look at
the people who believe some thing or another, and based on their
commitment to their ideas, decide to either agree or disagree with
them. And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach.
Christian apologetics have often pointed to the fact that the
Apostles were prepared to be executed for their belief in the
Resurrected Christ as a proof that they really did witness His
resurrection, since people don’t tend to be willing to die for
uncertain things. So there is some value in allowing the apparent
genuineness of someone else’s beliefs to inform our own.

But such an approach is neither the fullest nor surest
measure of truth. It is tempting to think that if someone believes
passionately, they must believe rightly. It is hard to imagine that
someone would commit themselves so unreservedly to something
that is wrong. But this happens all the time. One needn’t look any
further than the passionate and riotous clamoring of the pro¬
transgender cultural Marxists for a current example of this. And
throughout history we find plenty of additional examples. Pagans
have taken up arms in defense of their beliefs. And the Church
has seen heretics who were willing to die for their errors.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 127

An argument made with confidence is not necessarily an
argument well made. And Reverend Crawford is, again, “exhibit A”
to this effect. One would hardly imagine that an argument made
with such a triumphant tone would be so demonstrably false. One
would hardly imagine that an argument presented with such
confidence would be an argument that actually rests on fraudulent
material. And yet, here we are. His booklet is a theological
vacuum, and the only thing genuine about it is the pride and
confidence with which he presents his errors.

So if we can’t always rely on a person’s confidence in their
beliefs to know what is true, and if we can’t always look into the
matter for ourselves, how can we ever know? One step in the right
direction is to not politicize truth. In these dark and leaderless
times, too many Catholics view religious truth on a political
spectrum. On the far right is the Catholic Church, with everything
to the “left" of her being some form or another of error. In this
view, the further a proposition is from being liberal, the safer it is.

But what about the Fraticelli? They argued that the Church
should own nothing. The Catharii? They practiced ritual suicide
and condemned all carnal relations. The Donatists? They argued
that defection from the faith entailed the loss of sacramental
character. The Jansenists? They were thinly-veiled Catholic-
Calvinists. Viewing “extreme” views as “safe” views is rendered
quickly false with even a superficial survey of Catholic history.

We live in a time where the predominant errors are liberal
ones. As such, it seems somewhat natural that the responses to
those errors would emphasize the more “conservative” aspects of
the Catholic faith. But pendulums have a tendency to swing too
far. And in our zeal against liberal errors, we must be wary of
inadvertently adhering to errors on the opposite end of the
spectrum.

So as tempting and as simple as it might seem to just find
what our enemies believe and pick whatever is the opposite of
that, such an approach makes truth relative to liberalism. The
Catholic Church is the ark of salvation. One may fall overboard
port or starboard. In either event, one has left the safety of the
salvific barque. And once one is drowning, one can hardly find

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 128

solace in saying “at least I wasn’t a liberal.” Not only can one find
no solace in such a sentiment, the sentiment isn’t even true. For,
while the proposition “there is no baptism of desire” is an error “to
the right,” only liberalism can actually bring one to that error.
Liberalism is the principal enabler of doctrinal error, whether the
error be of excess or laxity.

Liberalism ultimately comes from a rejection of authority. It
is non serviam. It is Lucifer’s sin cleverly re-packaged with the
allure of modernity. One can only maintain a denial of baptism of
desire by rejecting the authority which teaches it. And alarmingly,
those who deny baptism of desire are eager to share their
rejection of that authority. They will say that what they reject is the
authority of man, and they reject it because it violates the laws of
God.

That was a very convincing argument five hundred years
ago when the Protestants first came up with it, but Catholics today
should know better. Let’s remember that what makes someone a
“liberal" Catholic is not that they reject Divine Revelation, but that
they accept it provisionally—once they’re satisfied that it meets
their expectations. Allow us to quote from a work revered by all
traditional Catholics, Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany’s (1886) Liberalism
is a Sin:

[The liberal Catholic] accepts Revelation, not on account of
the infallible Revealer, but because of the "infallible"
receiver. With him the individual judgment is the rule of
faith. He believes in the independence of reason. It is true
he accepts the Magisterium of the Church, yet he does not
accept it as the sole authorized expounder of divine truth.
He reserves, as a coefficient factor in the determination of
that truth, his own private judgment. (Ch. 7, §1)

One who denies baptism of desire receives what the Church’s
ordinary magisterium proposes—hundreds if not thousands of
different truths that range from the perpetual virginity of the
Blessed Mother, to Guardian Angels, to the sainthoods of the
Apostles, and so on. But they draw the line at baptism of desire, or
periodic continence, or wherever else. Why accept some but not
all proposed truths? It seems that there can be no other answer to
this aside from private judgment mediating the acceptance of
religious truth. Some truths are met with acceptance by the

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 129

infallible receiver, while others, privately judged to be incompatible
with truths already infallibly received, are rejected 51 .

No one who rejects legitimate religious authority while still
claiming the name Christian admits to such a rejection. They will
say (indeed, sometimes without even being accused of anything)
that they believe everything God has revealed, that they hold fast
to the Catholic faith in its entirety, and that we are the ones who
have supplanted the authority of God with “the authority of man.”
But there’s nothing between them and the solemn council texts,
just as there’s nothing between the Protestant and his bible. And
in both cases, questioning the rule of faith will get the following
retort: “Scripture/Solemn teaching speaks for itself to those of
good will.” Of course “those of good will" is tacked onto the end
because they can’t admit that legitimate disputes about the
meanings of these texts could arise without undermining their
whole rule of faith. If there could be a legitimate dispute, then it
doesn’t speak for itself.

This rule of faith—the one which accepts solemn teaching
alone—is thoroughly Protestant, and it is fueled by independent,
individualist interpretation. That is why, despite the fact that Fr.
Feeney only died forty years ago, there are so many different ways
that people deny baptism of desire. Some do it the “classic” way,
which is what Feeney did and what Crawford did in 2017, by
arguing that baptism of desire justified, but that dying justified
wasn’t enough to be saved. Others do it the “revised” way, usually
attributed to Fr. Wathen, which is to argue that anyone justified by
baptism of desire will either lose the state of justification and die,
or be baptized before they die. Still others get more creative, like
Crawford in 2018 or the Zirconium Brothers, denying outright that
baptism of desire justifies. We’re sure that before the crisis is over
there will be even more ways to understand this “basic” Catholic
Truth which purportedly “speaks for itself”. What Trent actually
teaches about baptism of desire differs depending on who you
ask, just as the meaning of scripture differs depending on which

51 Some may think such an argument undermines the entire traditional Catholic
enterprise. It does not. For many reasons, but chiefly this: Vatican II was, from day one,
suspected by orthodox and traditional pastors to be fraudulent. Resistance to Vatican II is
something that can be traced to the very root of its proposals, while Baptism of Desire was
peacefully taught and received for at least half a millennium before anyone “noticed.”

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 130

Protestant you ask. But what all who deny baptism of desire have
in common is their rejection of the same authority: the ordinary
magisterium.

We think that to some degree, Catholics who assert that
solemn teaching alone is the rule of faith have very little idea what
they are rejecting. This doesn’t make it any safer—if anything, it
makes it more dangerous because they can’t anticipate all of the
consequent errors they adopt along the way. We are not speaking
only of additional doctrinal rejections, although that is of course a
risk. We speak of errors related to the very problems we face
today.

To give one notable example, consider modernism. It is the
chief scourge of the Church and society at large. A Catholic’s
understanding of modernism is owed principally to Pope Pius X’s
(1907) Pascendi Dominici Gregis. We’re sure virtually anyone who
would pick up this book has read Pascendi, even if it’s been a
while. Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical is, in many ways, the very ethos
and foundation of the traditional resistance to Vatican II.

But Pascendi isn’t an exercise of the extraordinary
magisterium. It has no solemn definitions. The “synthesis of all
heresies” isn’t a category of proscription. It isn’t an anathema.

So the very rule of faith which is propped up by Reverend Crawford
and others as the necessary antidote to liberal error categorically
excludes the Church’s most powerful expose of the insidious
modernist system.

If we use that rule of faith, how do we even know
modernism is wrong? The encyclical sounds good, but so does
Bach. And if we do acknowledge Pascendi as true, what measure
are we using? If we’ve rejected ordinary teaching, we only “know”
modernism is wrong because it agrees with what we already
believe. Not because it comes from the Church. So even if we c/o
get some things right, this rule of faith belies a corrupted and
distorted concept of authority and truth. And as such, we can’t
trust it.

To enlarge the example, we find that a rejection of baptism
of desire and periodic continence are almost invariably

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 131

accompanied by an ignorance or dismissal of scholastic
philosophy. We would go as far to say these rejections are
enabled by such attitudes. And to a certain extent such an
ignorance is fine, since lay Catholics probably aren’t expected to
be familiar with it, or if they are, they’re not expected to know
much beyond the very basics. We don’t need to be philosophers
to go to Heaven. Nevertheless, scholastic philosophy is utterly
crucial to the demonstration of sound doctrine and a disdain or
ambivalence toward it from clergy is wholly reprehensible.

For those who’ve read it recently, or those with good
memories: how does Pascendi end? After Pope St. Pius X
obliterates the modernist doctrine, he concludes with a
determination of how modernism is to be overcome. His principal
solution is this: St. Thomas Aquinas. Not “reading dogmas as they
were once defined,” not “adhering to the plain meanings of the
words,” not “letting solemn teaching speak for itself,” not “reading
the words the way they read,” nor any other silly rhetoric. Instead,
he says:

On this philosophical foundation [of St. Thomas Aquinas]
the theological edifice is to be carefully raised. Promote the
study of theology, Venerable Brethren, by all means in your
power, so that your clerics on leaving the seminaries may
carry with them a deep admiration and love of it, and
always find in it a source of delight. (§46)

But to some, St. Thomas is only significant because “he got the
Immaculate Conception wrong”. Which attitude is right? Theirs, or
Pascendi’s ? Is St. Thomas’s contribution to the Church a warning
that Doctors are useless, or is it a system of philosophical
principles without which not even the words used to propose
dogmas can be understood?

Nothing is safe when the ordinary magisterium is set aside.
A better—and certainly more Catholic approach—is the approach of
St. Philip’s Eunuch. When Philip found him reading Isaias, he
asked, “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou
readest?” To which the Eunuch said, how can I unless some man
show me? (Acts 8:31).

Who showed those who deny baptism of desire the way? The
answer isn’t Trent. It wasn’t “the words the way they read.” No

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 132

one has ever picked up Trent, completely on their own, read its
canons on baptism and justification, and walked away immediately
thinking “well, the Church definitely condemns baptism of desire.”

It may seem bold and presumptuous for us to blankly assert this,
but our proof is the fact that for five hundred continuous years,
everyone who read Trent— in Latin, including doctors of the
Church—failed to arrive at that understanding. So unless we’re
prepared to argue that no one actually read it for half a
millennium—or worse, that everyone who did read it maliciously
twisted “the way the words read”—we have to conclude that even if
someone goes directly to Trent, they don’t come away from it with
baptism of desire denial.

No, there’s always some mediator between the Catholic
and the primary documents, even for those who claim to be
learning directly from them. It’s Fr. Feeney, the Dimonds,

Reverend Crawford, or even just their friends and associations.
There’s no truly “going to the top.” When the ordinary magisterium
is removed, it’s always replaced by some other mini-magisterium.
The denial itself is a fabricated idea, with Trent used to support it
after the fact. It’s the same story with the Protestants. They’re not
really getting their scriptural ideas “from the plain meaning of
scripture.” They get the ideas from those who blazed the trail
ahead of them, and then private interpretation picks up the slack-
just as it does with baptism of desire denial—and maintains the
errors indefinitely. It is a cycle of false authorities informing
individual understanding of doctrine, and then that individual
standard of doctrine serves as the litmus test of orthodoxy. The
ordinary magisterium isn’t just rejected, it’s replaced. Not, as our
opponents would like us to believe, by solemn teaching, but by
doctrinal dissidents and private interpretations.

All of these considerations go back to Chapter One. In
Chapter One we argued for the value of the ordinary magisterium.
We provided many arguments—from reason, from Tradition, and
from authority—to prove that it is an infallible source of teaching,
and not just “when it agrees” with the solemn magisterium. It can
never disagree with the solemn magisterium. It is the proximate
rule of faith.

Contra Crawford, Chapter Seven: Conclusion: On Truth 133

We will not revisit those arguments here. Rather, we will
simply point to the fruits of denying the ordinary magisterium its
role in Catholic learning: Doctrinal chaos controlled by theological
demi-tyrants. Everything—all doctrines, and the Church herself—is
put slavishly into the service of maintaining the pet theories.
Catholic teaching—solemn or otherwise—is stripped of its content
until only what is useful to the cause is left. From the ashes of
obliterated doctrine arises a perverse phoenix heralded by the
little tyrants as the reflection of Truth Incarnate. The credulous
laity, conned by this rhetoric, are excited to see the Church purified
by this profane crucible. At such a dramatic distance from
authentic Catholic learning, they cheer as they confuse theological
alchemy with Tradition. “This”, they say, “is what the Church has
always taught.”

It is our pious hope that the Church will be restored. That
Catholic churches everywhere will once again house the
Sacrament of the Altar and be staffed with real priests who teach
real doctrine and who are sent from a real authority. That
Catholics will one day be able to trust their pastors again, and “like
newborn babes,” receive the rational milk of doctrine without guile
(1 Pet 2:2). That for the first time in more than a generation, there
will be a Vicar of Christ on earth again. We are sure that everyone
shares in our hope. And we do not think it is a vain hope, since
with God all things are possible.

The Church is sometimes said to mystically parallel the life
of Christ. The consummation of Vatican II was the consummation
of the Church’s passion, and the initiation of her Holy Saturday.
Holy Saturday is distinguished by an uncomfortable quietude as
the Church lays silent. But we know that if the Church endures
Holy Saturday, she will eventually enjoy a restoration, just as the
Resurrected Lord did. When the restoration occurs, the Church’s
ministry will be seen and known everywhere. But those who
persist in this profane rule of faith will be deaf to it. When the
Church is restored, they will be like the disciples who were leaving
Jerusalem, set on their own way (Luke 24:13-20). As the eyes of
those disciples prevented them from seeing the Risen Lord, their
ears will prevent them from hearing the restored Church. They will
encounter the restored Church face to face and not even recognize
her.

Bibliography

References are ordered alphabetically by surname or
conventional name, depending on which is more notable. The
parenthetical (year) is when the work was written. Works which
have been translated or revised will also include a parenthetical
year of translation/revision after the translator’s name. Work that
has been translated indicates who conducted the translation, and
work consisting in a compendium will indicate the editor of the
compendium, as will any revised work indicate the reviser. All
works, when available, indicate their publishing house and
location. The medium of the work (print or web URL) is indicated,
and works which were retrieved through print but which are also
available (in part or in full at no cost) online will contain hyperlinks
to their online editions.

Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Vol. 42). (1951). Retrieved from
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index sp.htm
Aquinas, Thomas, St. (-1255). Scriptum super Sententiis

(Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences). (English
Trans. Aversa, A., 2018). Retrieved from
http://www.corpusthomisticum.Org/snpl042.html#3184
Aquinas, Thomas, St. (-1265-1274). Summa Theologiae. (trans.
Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920).

Retrieved from

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html
Augustine, Charles, O.S.B. (1918). A Commentary on the New
Code of Canon Law (Vol. I). Herder: St. Louis. Retrieved
from

https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawComme

ntarv

Augustine of Hippo, St. (~4-5 th Cent.). Against the Fundamental
Epistle of Manichaeus. (trans. Stothert, R., 1887, ed.

Schaff, P. & Knight, K., rev. Knight, K.). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
Augustine of Hippo, St. (~4-5 th Cent.). “Tractate 13 (John 3:22-

29).” (trans. Gibb, J., 1888, ed. Schaff, P. & Knight, K., rev.
Knight, K.). Retrieved from

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701013.htm
Augustine of Hippo, St. (-426). “On Rebuke and Grace/Admonition
and Grace.” From Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1. (ed. &
trans. Jurgens, W., 1970). Print. Preview available at

Bibliography 136

https://books.google.com/books7icNrkvLsueY DwC&sourc
e=gbs navlinks s Consulted but not cited: “On Rebuke
and Grace, Ch. 11.” (trans. Holmes, P. & Wallis, R., 1887,
ed. Schaff, P., rev. Warfield, B. & Knight, K.). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm
Bellarmine, Robert, Cardinal St. (1588). De Controversiis

Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos,
Tomus II {On the Controversies of the Christian Faith
against the Heretics of this Time, Second Tome). Mediatrix
Press: Post Falls, ID. (trans. Grant, R., 2017). Print.

Benedict XV, Pope. (1914). Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum. (ed.

Carlen, C., 1990). Retrieved from
http://www.papalencvclicals.net/benl5/bl5adbea.htm
Benedictine Monks of Solesmes (Selected and Arranged by).

(1962). Papal Teachings: the Church, (trans. O’Gorman). St.
Pauls Edition: Boston, MA. Print.

Berry, E. Sylvester, D.D.. (1927). The Church of Christ: An

Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise. B. Herder Co: St. Louis,
MO. Print.

Bouscaren, Timothy J., SJ. & Ellis, Adam C., S.J. (1946). Canon
Law: a Text and Commentary. Bruce: Milwaukee. Print.
Brownson, Orestes. (1847). “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” From
Brownson’s Quarterly Review, Last Series, Vol. II, pp. 220-
45. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=02JZAAAAIAAJ&source
=gbs navlinks s

Burke, Thomas, Bishop, O.P. (1752). A Catechism: Moral and
Controversial. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=l-
4CAAAAQAAJ&source=gbs navlinks s
Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini (Canons &

Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent). (1563). Latin
Transcriptions from Le Plat, Richter, Streitwolf, Klener, &
Smets (English trans. Waterworth, J., 1848, ed. Schaff, P).
Retrieved from

https://www.ccel. 0 rg/ccel/schaff/creeds 2 .v.i.i.html
Calkins, Hugh, O.S.M. (1948). “Rhythm: the Unhappy

Compromise." Integrity Magazine (June, 1948). Retrieved
from

http://archives.sspx.org/against sound bites/rhythm unh
appy compromise.htm

Bibliography 137

Cekada, Anthony, Rev Fr. (2000). “Baptism of Desire and

Theological Principles.” (Referenced, not cited). Retrieved
from www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-
Proofed.pdf (link will initiate .pdf download)

Chapman, John. (1909). “Eutyches.” From The Catholic

Encyclopedia, (transc. Hyland, S., ed & rev. Knight, K.).
Robert Appleton: New York. Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05631a.htm

Conlon, Christopher. (2014). Sources of Baptism of Blood and
Desire. (Referenced, not cited). Print. Also available at
https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBapti
smOf Desire

Crawford, Dominic, Rev. (2017). Replies to Your Questions.
[scanned paper files],

Crawford, Dominic, Rev. (2018). Untitled Booklet, [scanned paper
files].

Denzinger, Heinrich. (1854). Enchiridion Symbolorum et

Definitionum et Declarationum (1 st edition). Sumptibus
Stahelianis: Wurzburg. Retrieved from www.izidor.cz/wp-
content/uploads/sdf5sd4fs0d5fsd4f.pdf (link will initiate
.pdf download).

Denzinger, Heinrich. (1910). Enchiridion Symbolorum et

Definitionum et Declarationum (11 th edition). Flerder:
Friburg. Retrieved from

https://archive.Org/stream/enchiridionsvmbo00denz#page

/n5/mode/2up/search/388

Denzinger, Heinrich. (1954). Sources of Catholic Dogma (30 th
edition), (trans. Defararri, R.). Preserving Christian
Publications (2009): Booneville: NY. Print. Also available at
http://patristica.net/denzinger/

Dolan, Albert HL, O.Carm. (1937). All the Answers about Marriage
and Birth Control. The Carmelite Press: Chicago. Print.

Douay-Rheims Bible. (All scripture verses cited herein). Retrieved
from http://www.drbo.org/

Fenton, Joseph C. S.T.L., J.C.B., S.T.D. (1944). “The Use of the
Terms Body and Soul with Reference to the Catholic
Church.” The American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 110, pp.
48-57. Print.

Fenton, Joseph C. S.T.L., J.C.B., S.T.D. (1950). “The Baptismal
Character and Membership in the Catholic Church.” The

Bibliography 138

American Ecclesiastical Reviews/ ol. 122, no. 5, pp. 373-81.
Print.

Fenton, Joseph C. S.T.L., J.C.B., S.T.D. (1958). The Catholic Church
and Salvation in Light of Recent Pronouncements by the
Holy See. Newman Press: Maryland, USA. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/details/TheCatholicChurchAndSalvation
1958FentonMsgr.JosephClifford5299

Flynn, T.E., Rev. (1948). “Supernatural Virtues.” From The

Teaching of the Catholic Church: Volume One. (ed. Smith,

G., D.D.). Print.

Ford, John C., SJ. & Kelly, Gerald, S.J. (1963). Contemporary Moral
Theology, vol. 2: Marriage Questions. From Marriage:
Readings in Moral Theology (Vol. 15). (eds. Curran, C. &
Hanlon Rubio, J., 2009). Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=FIVxM16DT9cC

Franzelin, Johann, Cardinal. (1875). “On the True Sense of the

Vincentian Canon.” From De Divina Traditione et Scriptura,
Thesis XXIV. (Trans. Daly, J.S., 2008). Retrieved from
http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic. php?f=ll&t=740

Gasparri, Pietro, Cardinal, (ed., 1918). Codex luris Canonici PiiX
iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae XV (Code of Canon Law,
issued by Pope Pius X, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV).
PJ Kennedy and Sons. Retrieved from
httPs://books.google.com/books?id=DzgUAAAAYAAJ&sourc
e=gbs navlinks s

Geissler, Herman, F.S.O. (2012). “The Witness of the Faithful in
Matters of Doctrine according to John Henry Newman.”
International Center of Newman Friends. Retrieved from
www.newmanfriendsinternational.org/en/wp-
content/.../on-consulting-englishl.pdf (link will initiate .pdf
download)

Gibbon, Edward. (1851). History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire (Vol. I). J.A. & U.P. James: Cincinnati.
Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=qvXSAAAAMAAJ&sour
ce=gbs navlinks s

Griese, N. Orville, S.T.D., J.C.L. (1944). The ‘Rhythm in Marriage
and Christian Morality: including a Discussion of Practical
Cases in Married Life. Newman: Westminster, MD. Print.

Healy, Patrick. (1911). “Priscillianism.” From The Catholic
Encyclopedia, (transc. Dean, M., ed & rev Knight, K.).

Bibliography 139

Robert Appleton & Co: New York. Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12429b.htm
Hunter, Sylvester J., S.J. (1898). Manuals of Catholic Theology:
Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, (Vols. I & II). Longmans,
Green, & Co: London. Retrieved from
https://archive.Org/stream/outlinesofdogmat01hunt#page
/n6/mode/lup

Jurgens, W.A. (ed &trans. 1970). The Faith of the Early Fathers
vols. I-III. The Liturgical Press: Collegevilie, MN. Print.
Previews available at (1):
https://books.google.com/books7idH62q-
d4Wi20C&source=gbs navlinks s
( 2 ):

https://books.google.com/books?id=KPbi nBITvcC&source
=gbs book similarbooks
(3):

https://books.google.com/books?id=rkvLsueY DwC&sourc
e=gbs book similarbooks

Kelly, Brian. (2011). “Baptism of desire: its origin and

abandonment in the thought of Saint Augustine". Saint
Benedict’s Center. Retrieved from
http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-
abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
Kenrick, Francis Patrick, Right Rev. (1841). The Catholic Doctrine
on Justification Explained and Vindicated. Eugene
Cummiskey: Philadelphia. Retrieved from

httPs://books.google.com/books?id=kRXpYvZ39ilVIC&sour
ce=gbs navlinks s

King, John, O.M.I., S.T.L. (1959). The Necessity of the Church for
Salvation in Selected Theological Writings of the Past
Century: a Dissertation. Catholic University Press of
America Studies in Sacred Theology (Second Series, no.
115). Murray and Heister: Washington, D.C.. Print.

Lane, John. (1998). “St. Thomas Aquinas’s position on the

Immaculate Conception.” Retrieved from http://www.the-
pope.com/stThomas.html

Laux, John, Rev., M.A. (1931). Church History: a Complete History
of the Catholic Church to Present Day. Benzinger: USA.

Print.

Leo the Great, Pope St. (-450). St. Leo's Epistle to Flavian: the
Tome of St. Leo. Parker & Co. (trans Heurtley, C.A., 1885).

Bibliography 140

Retrieved from

https://archive.Org/stream/stleosepistle00leouoft#page/n
3/mode/2up/search/these+three
Leo the Great, Pope St. (5 th Century). “Epistle 15.” (trans. Lett

Feltoe, C., 1895, ed. Schaff P. & Knight, K, rev. Knight, K.).
Retrieved from

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604015.htm
Leo XIII, Pope. (1896). Satis Cognitum: on the Unity of the Church.
(ed. Carlin, C., 1990). Retrieved from
http://www.papalencvclicals.net/leol3/ll3satis.htm
Leo XIII, Pope. (1897). Divinum lllud Munus. (ed. Carlin, C., 1990).
Retrieved from

http://www.papalencvclicals.net/leol3/ll3divin.htm
Lerins, Vincent, St. (434). The Commonitorium. (trans. Heurtley,
C.A., 1894, ed. Schaff, P & Knight, K., rev. Knight,

K.).Retrieved from

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Lopez Bardon, Tirso. (1907). “Councils of Braga.” From The

Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton & Co: New York,
(transc. Green, B, ed. Knight, K.). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02729a.htm
Liguori, Alphonsus, St., C.S.S.R. (1745). Theologia Moraiis (Moral
Theology ). (5 th ed., 1845, trans. Daly, J.S., 2015). Retrieved
from

http://archive.Org/stream/theologiamorali02heilgoog#pag
e/n6/mode/2up translation retrieved from
http://www.sedevacantist.net/viewtopic.php?f=ll&t=178
5

Liguori, Alphonsus, St., C.S.S.R. (1772). The History of Heresies
and their Refutation; on the Triumph of the Church. Duffy:
Dublin, Ireland, (trans. Mullock, J.T., 1857). Print.

Liguori, Alphonsus, St., C.S.S.R. (1854). The Life of St. Alphonsus
Maria de Liguori, Bishop of St. Agatha of the Goths, and
Founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer
(Compiled from the published Memoirs of the Saint, by one
of the Redemptorist Fathers). John Murphy & Co: Baltimore,
USA. Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/thelifeofstalphoOOtannuoft
Lyons, Daniel, Rev Fr. (1891). Christianity and Infallibility: Both or
Neither. Longmans, Green, & Co.: New York. Retrieved from

Bibliography 141

https://books.google.com/books?id=hVw3AAAAMAAJ&sour
ce=gbs navlinks s

Malone, Michael. (1987). The Apostolic Digest. Sacred Heart
Press: Irving, TX. Print.

McCauley, Leo P., Sullivan, John J., McGuire, Martin R.P., &

DeFerrari, RJ. (1953). The Fathers of the Church: a New
Translation (Vol. 22): Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory
Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose. Catholic University of
America: Washington, D.C. Print.

Meehan, A.B., Mgr. (1918). “The First Book.” From The New Canon
Law in its Practical Aspects, pp. 45-56. (ed. American
Ecclesiastical Review). The Dolphin Press: Philadelphia.
Retrieved from

https://archive.Org/stream/thenewcanonlaw00unknuoft#p

age/n3/mode/2up/search/oriental

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “notorious” &

“malodorous.” Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/

Miller, Adam. (2010). Life-Giving Waters. Tower of David
Publications: USA. Print. Preview available
httPs://books.google.com/books?id=UpAtAgAAQBAJ&sourc
e=gbs navlinks s

Mueller, Michael, C.S.S.R. (1875). Familiar Explanation of Christian
Doctrine (no. III). Kreuzer: Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/details/familiarexplanaOOmlgoog

Nazianzen, Gregory, St. (381). “Oration of the Holy Lights.” (trans.
Browne, C.G. & Swallow, J.E., 1894, ed. Schaff, P. & Knight,
K., rev. Knight, K.). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

Nazianzen, Gregory, St. (381). “Oration on Holy Baptism.” (trans.
Browne, C.G. & Swallow, J.E., 1894, ed. Schaff, P. & Knight,
K., rev. Knight, K.). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm

Noonan, John T., Jr. (1965). Contraception: a History of its

Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists
(Enlarged ed). Belknap Press of Harvard University:
Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=S-
fBxgQoYQOC&source=gbs navlinks s

Bibliography 142

Noonan, John T., Jr. (1967). “The Catholic Church and Abortion.”
Natural Law Forum. Retrieved from

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd naturallaw forum/126/
Ott, Ludwig. (1955). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. (Trans.

Lynch, P., ed. Bastible, P.). Tan (1974): Rockford, IL. Print.
Otten, Bernard J., Rev., S.J. (1918). A Manual of the History of
Dogmas: Vol II. Herder: St. Louis, MO. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/stream/AManualOfTheHistorvOfDogma
sV2#page/n9/mode/2up

Parente, Pietro, et al. (1941). Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology.

Bruce: Milwaukee, (trans Doronzo, E., 1951). Print.

Peters, Edward N. (2001). The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of
Canon Law: in English Translation with Extensive Scholarly
Apparatus. Ignatius: San Francisco. Preview available
https://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&sourc
e=gbs navlinks s

Pius V, Pope St. (1566, commissioned by). The Catechism of the
Council of Trent, (trans McHugh, J. & Callan, C., 1923).
Catholic Primer [.pdf file]. Retrieved from
www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism
.pdf (link will initiate .pdf download)

Pius IX, Pope. (1854). Ineffabilis Deus. Retrieved from

http://www.newadvent.org/librarv/docs pi09id.htm
Pius X, Pope St. (1907). Pascendi Dominici Gregis. (Ed. Carlen, C.,
1990). Retrieved from

http://www.papalencvclicals.net/piuslO/plQpasce.htm
Pius X, Pope St. (1914). “Doctoris Angelici.” Notre Dame
University. Retrieved from
https://maritain.nd.edu/imc/etext/doctoris.htm
Pius XI, Pope. (1930). Cast; Connubii. (ed. Carlin, C., 1990).
Retrieved from

http://www.papalencvclicals.net/piusll/pllcasti.htm
(N.B.: unless stated otherwise, Casti Connubii quotes are
taken from Denzinger’s translation).

Pius XII, Pope. (1951) “Papal Discourse to the Italian catholic

Union of Midwives.” From The National Catholic Almanac
(compiled by the Franciscan Clerics of Holy Name College,
1952), pp. 79-88. St. Anthony’s Guild: Patterson, NJ. Also
available at

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/piusl2/pl2midwives.htm

Bibliography 143

Pivarunas, Mark A., Bishop. (2017). “Questions to answer”,
[scanned paper files],

Pohle, Joseph. (1909). “Sanctifying Grace.” From The Catholic
Encyclopedia, (transc. Hibbs, S.A. & Ploffman, W.L).
Retrieved from

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
Pohle, Joseph. (1917). Dogmatic Theology (Vol. III). Plerder: St.
Louis. (trans. Preuss). Retrieved from
https://archive.org/details/dogmatictheology03pohluoft
Portsmouth Herald. (12 May, 1969). Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/newsoage/56444704/
Prummer, Dominic, O.P. (1956). Handbook of Moral Theology.
Roman Catholic Books: Fort Collins, CO. (Trans Shelton,
G.W., ed. Nolan, J.G.). Print. Also available at
https://archive.org/details/HandbookOfMoralTheology
Rainy, Robert. (1902). The Ancient Catholic Church: From the

Ascension of Trajan to the Fourth General Council. Charles
Scribner’s Sons: New York. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=ndol7iX5TSMC&sour
ce=gbs navlinks s

Ruby, Griff. (2008). “Desire to Know the Full Truth about Baptism
of Desire.” Daily Catholic, vol. 19, no. 308. Retrieved from
http://www.dailvcatholic.org/issue/08Nov/nov3str.htm
Sarda y Salvany, Don Fr. Felix. (1886). Liberalism is a Sin. (trans.
Pallen, C.B., 1899). Retrieved from
http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

Scannell, Thomas. (1908). “Catechumen.” From The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Co: New York. (Transc.
Crossett, T.). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm
Slater, Thomas, SJ. (1925). A Manual of Moral Theology for
English Speaking Countries (Vol I). Burnes Oates &
Washburne: London. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf l#page/n5
Texta et Documenta, Series Theologica (Vol. 25). (1942). (trans.
Harrison, B., 2006, excerpted from This Rock). Retrieved
from

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm7r

ecnum=6452

The Apostolic Digest Sales and Review Page. (2018). Amazon.com.
Multiple Reviews retrieved from

Bibliography 144

https://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-digest-Michael-
Malone/dp/1885692005#customerReviews
“Tower of David Publications”. (2018). Lulu Spotlight. Retrieved
from http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tower7
Van Noort, G., S.T.D. (1957). Dogmatic Theology: Christ's Church
(Vol. 2). Newman: Westminster, MD. Print.

Vermeersch, Arthur, S.J. (1913). “Tolerance”. (Trans. Page, W.H.).
Excerpt Retrieved from

http://strobertbellarmine.net/vermeersch.html
Vermeersch, Arthur, S.J. (1932). What is Marriage? A Catechism
arranged according to the Encyclical ‘Casti Connubii' of
Pope Pius XI. (Trans. Bouscaren, T.L.). The American Press:
1932. Retrieved from

dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/34415/
GIPE-253509-08.pdf (link will initiate .pdf download).
Vermeersch, Arthur, S.J. (1938). “Excerpts from an Article by Rev.
Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.” The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 6, no.

4, pp. 85-89. Retrieved from

https://epublications.marquette.edU/lnq/vol6/iss4/4/
Walker, Leslie. (1911). “Divine Providence.” From The Catholic

Encyclopedia, (transc. Potter, D.J., ed. Knight, K.). Retrieved
from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
Ward, William G, D.Ph. (1880). “The Church’s Magisterium” from
Essays on the Church’s Doctrinal Authority. Print. Also
available at

https://archive.org/details/a612607900warduoft
Wayne, T.G. (1936). Morals and Marriage: The Catholic

Background to Sex. Longmans, Green, & Co: Westminster.
Print. Unpaginated web version available at
http://www.ewtn.com/librarv/marriage/mormar.txt
Wilhelm, Joseph, D.D., & Scannell, Thomas B, D.D. (1909). A
Manual of Catholic Theology based on Scheeben’s
‘Dogmatik’ (Vol. I). Benziger Bros: USA. Retrieved from
https://archive.Org/stream/manualofcatholic01scheiala#p
age/n5/mode/2up

Woywod, Stanislaus, O.F.M. (1918). The New Canon Law: a

Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law.
Joseph F. Wagner: New York. Retrieved from
https://archive.Org/stream/newcanonlaw00wovwuoft#pag
e/n3/mode/2up/search/infallible

Bibliography 145

Woywod, Stanislaus, O.F.M. (1957). A Practical Commentary on
the Code of Canon Law. (rev. & Comb. [Vols. 1 & II] Smith,
C.). Joseph Wagner: New York. Print.

Appendix A: Bishop Pivarunas’s Questions

Appendix A: Bishop Pivarunas’s Questions

148

Questions to Answer

1) Given the following papal teachings:

Pope Pius IX: '...it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the
Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which
are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the
common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions
opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve
some theological censure." Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: “22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely
bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to
be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.* Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ
1699, 1722.

Is it permitted to a Catholic to deny the teaching of the Holy Office Letter of 1949, approved by
Pius XII, which teaches salvation through baptism of desire for those who are not actually
members of the Church? If yes, how do you justify that in light of the above papal quotes?

2) In light of the same above papal quotes, do you believe a Catholic can reject Pius Xll’s
teaching on natural family planning which was published in the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis? If
so, what are your reasons and what theologians can you quote who teach that you can reject such
papal teaching?

3) The Council of Trent says that Penance and Baptism are necessary for salvation in the same
way:

“This sacrament of penance is for those who have fallen after baptism necessary for salvation, as
baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated." (Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction -
Sess. 14, Chapter 2. Bold added)

Yet, the Council teaches that the desire of Penance can suffice:

"Repentance after falling into sin includes... sacramental confession of those sins, at least in
desire (sacramentalem confessionem, saltern in voto), when a suitable occasion offers...” (Decree on
Justification - Sess. 6, Chapter 14; Bold added)

"The eternal punishment...is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or by the desire of
the sacrament(vel Sacremento, vel Sacramenti voto)..." (Decree on Justification - Sess. 6, Chapter
14)

If Penance and Baptism are of the same type of necessity according to the Council, how do you
deny that a desire can suffice for Baptism too?

4) The Council of Trent teaches:

“If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to
salvation , let him be anathema.” (Canons on Penance, Canon 6)

These are practically identical to the words the Council uses to speak of the necessity of baptism.
They say Penance is "necessary to salvation.” In relation to baptism you interpret the phrase
“necessary to salvation” as excluding all possibility of baptism of desire sufficing for salvation.

How then do you interpret these words differently in relation to Penance, allowing salvation to one
who dies without confession but after making a perfect act of contrition with the desire for
Penance? If the words are so absolute in your mind, how can they admit of desire in relation to
Penance?

5) Considering the following errors of Michael du Bay condemned by Pope St. Pius V:

’#71 Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the

Appendix A: Bishop Pivarunas’s Questions

149

sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of
necessity, or of martyrdom." (Denzinger 1071. Emphasis added) “#31 Perfect and sincere charity, which
is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned," can be in catechumens as well as in
penitents without the remission of sins." (Denzinger 1031)

If you say baptism of desire justifies a man but does not allow him to be saved, how do you
explain God sending a man to hell who has been justified and is, therefore, in the state of grace?

6) Can you quote one pope who says that God promises to give the actual sacrament of Baptism
to one who has been justified by baptism of desire?

7) Do you believe Canon Law is infallible?

8) If you believe baptism of desire applies only to justification and not to salvation how do you
explain the following Canon which clearly says baptism of desire applies to salvation?

Canon 737: “Baptism, the door to and the foundation of the sacraments, necessary for the salvation of all
persons in fact or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except through a washing with true, natural
water accompanied by the prescribed verbal formula." (Emphasis added)

9) Do you believe the Church erred in the above canon (737)?

10) Can 1239, §2: “Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism, are to
be counted as baptized."

This canon specifically says these catechumens died without baptism. If you believe that ail
adults who die without baptism go to hell, how can the Church permit them to have ecclesiastical
burial?

11) If you believe baptism of desire applies only to justification and not to salvation how do you
explain the following which clearly says baptism of desire applies to salvation?

Rituale Romanum approved by Pope Pius XI in 1925: "Holy Baptism, the gateway of the Christian religion
and of eternal life, which holds the first place among the other Sacraments of the new Law instituted by
Christ, is necessary to all in fact or at least in desire for salvation, as the Truth Himself testifies in these
words: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'
(John 3,5)." (Titulus II, Cap. I, “De Sacramento Baptismi Rite Administrando”; Emphasis added)

12) Do you believe Pius XI erred in approving this Rituale?

13) The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once,
but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger
as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it
impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive
Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. ( Catechism of
the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, Issued by order of Pope Pius V, p. 179, Rockford, III.: TAN Books
and Publ., Inc.; Bold added)

Since this catechism was written by those who lived at the time of the Council and by order of the
pope, they would have known the true meaning of the Canons on Baptism from the Council
of Trent. Do you believe the writers of this catechism are wrong and you are right? If not, why do
you not accept their teaching?

14) Do you accept the following teaching of Pius IX which no where mentions actual baptism in
saying these persons can be saved? How does this fit with your denial of salvation through
baptism of desire?

Encyclical of Pope Pius IX to the bishops of Italy, Quanto conficiamur moerore. “We all know that those

Appendix A: Bishop Pivarunas’s Questions

150

who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the
precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men. if they are prepared to
obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light
and grace. For God, who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and
habits of all men. will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not
guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma
that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinatelyoppose the
authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the
Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of
his vineyard), cannot obtain salvation.' (Denzinger #1677. Cf. The Church Teaches, #178. Rockford, III.:
TAN Books and Publ., Inc.; Emphasis added)

15) St. Thomas’ theology has been held in high regard by the popes for centuries and Leo XIII
ordered it to be used in seminaries. If he erred against a dogma of the Church as you say, how do
you explain that not one pope pointed this out or ordered this error expunged?

16) Pope Gregory XVI said in the Bull of Canonization for St. Alphonsus:

“What deserves to be particularly noticed is, that after a careful examination of his worfcs, it has been
ascertained that they all, notwithstanding their number and extent, may be perused by the faithful with the
most perfect safety ’ This bull was signed by thirty-four cardinals. (Cf. Sermons of St. Alphonsus
Liguori, p. xii. Rockford, III.: TAN Publishers)

Do you believe this pope erred in stating this? Why would he say this if SL Alphonsus taught a
doctrine condemned by Trent as you say?

17) Can you quote one pope or Council which says: “If anyone says you can get to heaven by
baptism of desire without the actual reception of the sacrament, let him be anathema."?

18) Do you believe that theologians after the Council of Trent's decrees on Baptism (including
Doctors of the Church and many saints) have all misunderstood what the Council meant? How
could they all be wrong? How many theologians can you quote after Trent who claim that the
Council did not teach baptism of desire as a means of salvation?

Appendix B: Reverend Crawford’s (2017) Replies

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

152

January 25th, 2017
Conversion of St. Paul

Praised be Jesus and Mary,

Dear Your Excellency,

Thank you for the time and experience over the past 6 years with CMRI. I know you told me outside on
the steps of the Church that you cannot ordain me due to the issues of Natural Family Planning, and
Baptism by Desire and Blood. I don't understand how we can teach people to believe these issues under
pain of mortal sin, as if it is a dogma revealed by Jesus Christ.

If NFP and Baptism by desire and blood are the reasons why I am not allowed to be a priest in CMRI,
then I willingly accept the consequences. I know seminarians have been sent away before for rejecting
NFP, and I pray for perseverance in these times.

I was hoping to speak with you in person and bring everything to a head and finally confirm everything
going on since last October, 2016. Also, I wanted to meet one on one to avoid any rumors or things
being falsely said. One priest asked me if I was secretly ordained. I was shocked in all honesty and told
him, "No I am still a Deacon. Father, you would know if I were ordained; it would be a public thing not a
secret to hide from people."

I still hope and pray to be a true priest someday. It won't be a private or "secret Ordination" without
people knowing. You know me and my family very well, and I wouldn't "secretively be Ordained" with
no proof of validity. My Ordination may be small and without the exterior glory, but it will still have its
proof and validity. All in God's timing and under Our Lady's Precious Mantle.

You mentioned that I should request to be lifted from my vows as a Religious with CMRI, and if it's due
to the issues of NFP and Baptism by Desire and Blood, then if this is true, I ask now to be suspended
from the vows with CMRI.

I don't regret any time or experience with CMRI, and I am grateful for all you've done. I pray every day
through Our Lady and Her Rosary that we will not compromise God's Truth, and that we hold to the
teachings of the Catholic Church from Christ as He gave them to His Apostles and were spread
throughout the world.

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which professes that there is "no salvation outside
of the Catholic Church". I believe in one baptism unto the remission of sins, and that the sacraments are
necessary for salvation. Whereby baptism with water is a necessary means and condition for salvation,
as the Council of Trent states very clearly. One must be in the Church to enter Heaven, and one must
also die with sanctifying grace on one's soul. Both are required for salvation.

I am not a "diamond brother" as I have never associated or spoke to them in my life, and as far as I know
they "damn everybody" to hell. I am also a sede-vecantist. I have yet to understand what is so extreme
by saying God will fulfill His promises and Words.

Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away.

With prayers and thanksgiving,

Rev. Mr. Dominic Crawford

(Here are the answers point by point to the questions I was sent. I didn't know you were still waiting for
a response, as I thought I sent a response in November from Akron. I hope this reaches you in good
timing, as I know you are very busy. Thank you, God Bless you, and Mary keep you.)

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

153

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

154

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

155

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

156

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

157

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

158

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

159

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

160

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

161

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

162

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

163

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

164

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

165

Appendix B: Crawford’s (2017) Replies

166

Appendix C: Reverend Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

"Ami Jews 6<\nH r.imr «u«? .*/ tkr voter: .ifrrf )&, the Ani«wn« hvtv

ttprruJ At Amu- unjfrr tafJir Spirit of Gad Ancentivty at *1 Jvtw. teetJ coming tffsan Arm.
Af>t MMif i> W#A.Y Jr&tn finin'*, sxying' 1A«* A my tielatrd S*v\ m kAohi / oru xv.Vjit»n«t"
fMartha Ck.3 16-J7)

Pup* jiiMcml 111. l^Crraa < utuil 1.1215}.

'IV»r r»i*Tlu 1cu-tcrtx■. kx-raoffr:faiUti. c*4jiJ cofvbditc J*:ilcilUiateJ. 1 '

rep* !«. IN’. I oisnl *f V *w III t»JJ:

"All4««r(rtuU ;(il4 Ikillil ut acre-*sirr ud he Italy ‘Ijn ..'on V. iri 'frej^i

li» «tt Ini* mto llr i.*rxdi *

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet 168

f

I !

Praised be Jesus and Mary

To Your Excellency and to Whom It May Concern:

This is the third time I have responded to the questions you sent me in
October 2016. I retained copies of the responses including receipts from the
post office with tracking numbers. I trust you received them. I continue to
pray that we will come together to discuss the simple Catholic Faith. Please
know that I do not make this a personal battle against you or CMRI, and I do
not “throw dirt” or tell lies about you to other people.

II

Also, please understand that I was trained under your guidance for many
years and 1 grew up under the CMRI. Up until your questions you sent me in
October 2016 (which were in response to a letter I had written to you), I had
only studied what was given to us in the Seminary with regards to Church
teaching. I was taught and, therefore, under the impression that one could be
“justified by desire”. This was due to not looking at the entire teachings of the
Catholic Church and not understanding the relationship or meaning of
the words “cause” (Sess. VI, Ch. 7) and “cannot be effected” (Sess. VI, Ch. 4)
in the Council of Trent.

It is a matter of Catholic faith that 1) the Sacraments (an outward,
visible sign) are necessary to all people for salvation, 2) the Sacrament of
Baptism is the only way to he marked as a Catholic and to become a
member of the Catholic Church, and 3) a person must be a member of the
Catholic Church in order to be saved. You are deceiving people about the
truth when you continue to teach otherwise.

As Pope Pius IX said in 1854:

“As long as we are on earth, weighed down by this
mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly
that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one
God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4: 5); it is not
permitted to seek further.”

( * }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

169

Responses to Your Questions

1. Question: Is it permitted for a Catholic to deny the teaching of the Holy
Office Letter of 1949, approved by Pius XII, which teaches salvation
through baptism by desire for those who are not actually members of
the Church?

Answer: Yes, we must reject the Protocol Letter from 1949 because it
contradicts a defined Dogma of the Faith. We are not strictly obliged to believe
only in the Dogmas of the Chinch because not everything has been defined as
a Catholic Dogma. However, we are never obliged to accept anything that
contradicts a defined Dogma of the Faith.

Catholics are obliged to accept the Catholic Faith whole and entire:

Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Ad beatissimi (1914):

“The nature of the Catholic faith is such that nothing can
be added, nothing taken away. Either it is held in its
entirety or it is rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith
which, unless a man believes faithfully and firmly, he
cannot be saved.” (PTC, 761)

We are obliged under pain of damnation to accept the Dogmas of the Catholic
Church. A Dogma of the Catholic Church is defined once and for all and a
Dogma reads as it was once defined.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I defined in 1870:

“The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been
proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if
it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted
to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly
interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that
which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is
this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more
profound comprehension of the truth.” (Constitution, Dei
Filius, Chapter IV.)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

170

Brief History

The letter to Archbishop Cushing signed by Cardinal Marchetti, Secretary of
the Holy Office, was nothing more than a Protocol Letter# 122/49 to a “specific
person,” in this case to Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was never
signed by Pope Pius XII; it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis
until after Pope Pius XII died; and it contradicts itself as well as a Dogma of
the Faith.

Arch-Modernist Karl Rahner published this letter in The Sources of Catholic
Dogma by Denzinger in 1963, and the letter is used as a source quoted to
promote " salvation by invincible ignorance " in the Vatican II heretical
teachings of Lumen Gentium :

"But the plan of salvation also includes those who
acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there
are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of
Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who
on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from
those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for
it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127)
and as Savior wills that all men be saved.(l 28) Those also can
attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not
know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek
God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as
it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)"

(Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-
72).

We do not accept Vatican n because it contradicts defined Dogmas of the
Catholic Church, namely, that through the Sacrament of Baptism we are
marked as a Catholic and we must be a member of the Catholic Church to be
saved. Vatican II also contradicts Divine Law through the uprooting of the First
Commandment.

The same holds true regarding the Protocol Letter from Cardinal Marchetti to
Archbishop Cushing in Boston. The Protocol Letter contradicts itself by first
stating a Dogma of the Faith, "there is no salvation outside the Catholic
Church,” and then seven paragraphs later, teaches we do not actually need to
be a member of the Catholic Church to get to Heaven.

3

171

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

The Protocol Letter to Archbishop Cushing that you proclaim we are obliged
to accept contradicts:

A. Pope Leo IV (847-55), Council of Valence III (855):

"All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit (John 3, 5), and through this
are truly incorporated into the Church.” (Denz. 324)

B. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence; Decree for the Armenians (1439):

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the
sacraments because it is the gateway to the spiritual life.

By it we are made members of Christ and His Body, the
Church. And since death entered the universe through
the first man, ‘unless we are reborn of water and the
Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter the kingdom
of Heaven’(John.3:5).” (Denz. 696)

C. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Can. 2):

“If anyone says that true and natural water is not
necessary for baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless
a man be bom again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn.

3:5): let him be anathema.” (Denz. 858)

D. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Can. 5):

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

(Denz. 861)

E. Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon I (451):

“There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood; and these three are one” (I John
5:8). This means the Spirit of sanctification, and the
blood of redemption, and the water of Baptism, which

three things are one and remain undivided, and not
one of them is separated from union with the
others.”

4

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

172

F. Pope Clement V, Council ofVienne (1311-12):

“Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who
are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by
all, just as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5),
which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Denz. 482)

1

G. Pope Julius III, Council of Trent (1551), Session on Penance,

Chapter 4:

“The Church exercises judgment on no one who has
not first entered it through the gateway of baptism.

For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them
that are without? It is otherwise with those who are of
the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has
once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of
His own body.” (Denz. 895)

* Please note, the Church does not judge (forgive) those who are without
baptism; people who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism (which
requires water) cannot receive the Sacrament of Penance (even by an act of
perfect contrition). They are not members of the Church; they are already
condemned to hell (to some degree). Then it states that it is othenvise for those
who are of the household of the faith, i.e. the ones who have received the laver
(water) of baptism are made members of His own body.

H. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

“Christ indicated Baptism as the means whereby
future believers were to be grafted on the Body of the
Church... Finally, on the tree of the Cross He won for
Himself His Church, that is, all the members of His
Mystical Body, who are incorporated in this Mystical
Body by the waters of Baptism through the saving
virtue of this Cross.” (PTC. 1027, 1030)

I. Pope St. Innocent I (401-17) declared:

“That the rewards of eternal life are given without
Baptism is very foolish”. (Epistle 29)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

173

J. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

“Through the waters of Baptism those who are bom into
this world dead in sin are not only bom again and made
members of the Church, but being sealed with a spiritual
character they become able and fit to receive the other
sacraments.”

K. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

“Only those are to be considered real members of the
Church who have been regenerated in the waters of
Baptism, and profess the true Faith... Consequently, as
in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one
Body, one Lord, and one Baptism.” (Denz. 2286)

L. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947):

“Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who have not
been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently
are not members of Christ.”

M. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (December 11, 1925):

“The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on
earth.... The gospels present this kingdom as one which
men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually
enter except by faith and by baptism, which through an
external rite, signifies and produces an interior
regeneration.”

N. Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, On the Rosary, (1895):

“Through you, O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, the
Apostles have preached salvation to the nations; through
you the demons have been put to rout and mankind has
been summoned back to Heaven; through you every
misguided creature held in the thrall of idols is led to
recognize the truth; through you have the faithful been
brought to the laver of holy Baptism and churches been
founded among every people.”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

174

O. The Athanasian Creed:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary
that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith except
everyone do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he
shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
. . . Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation;
that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord
Jesus Christ . .. Who suffered for our salvation . .. And
they that have done good shall go into life everlasting,
and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is
the Catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and
firmly, he cannot be saved.”

P. Pope Innocent III, Lateran Council (1215):

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which no one at all is saved.”

Q. Pope Eugene IV, Council of'Florence, (1441):

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those
not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans,
but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot
become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into
everlasting fire which was prepare for the devil and his
angels’ (Matt. 25: 41), unless before the end of life the
same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of
the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of
benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgivings, and
other functions of piety and exercises of Christian
service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has
shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved,
unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet 175

r -

R. Pope Pius IX, Unam Sanctam (1302):

l

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to
maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also
apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with
simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation
nor the remission of sins.. .In her then is ‘one Lord, one
faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”

2. Question: In the light of the same above papal quotes, do you believe
a Catholic can reject Pius XII’s teaching on Natural Family Planning
which was published in the official Acta Apostolicac Sedis? If so, what
are your reasons and what theologians can you quote who teach that
you can reject such papal teaching?

Answer: Yes, all Catholics are obliged to obey Divine Law above the
teachings, laws, and authority of man. Divine Law teaches that the primary end
of marriage is the procreation of children, and the secondary end is the mutual
love of the spouses. The Church has defined that the secondary end (conjugal
fidelity) can never supersede the primary end (procreation of children). To
reverse the order is to destroy the Natural Law and puts the control of
procreation in the hands of man. John G. Murray, Archbishop of St. Paul,
Minnesota, from 1931 to 1956, is an example of a bishop who publicly
denounced the sinful and malodorous rhythm method.

Pope Pius XI stated in the encyclical “Casti Connubii”, 1930:

“To take away the natural and primeval right of
marriage, or in any way to circumscribe the chief
purpose of marriage established in the beginning by
the authority of God, is not within the power of any
law of man. . . . Thus the child holds the first place
among the blessing of marriage. Clearly the Creator of
the human race Himself, who because of His kindness
wished to use men as helpers in propagating life, taught
this in Paradise, when He instituted marriage, saying to
l our first parents, and through them to all spouses:

‘Increase and Multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1: 28).”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

176

“Indeed, some vindicate themselves for this criminal
abuse on the ground that they are tired of children and
wish merely to fulfill their desires without the
consequent burden; others on the ground that they can
neither observe continence, nor because of difficulties
of the mother or of family circumstances cannot have
offspring.. .Any use of the marriage act, in the exercise
of which it is designedly deprived of its natural power
of procreating life, infringes on the law of God and of
nature, and those who have committed any such act are
stained with the guilt of serious sin.”

“But no reason however grave, may be put forward by
which anything intrinsically against nature may become
conformable to nature and morally good. Since,
therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by
nature for the begetting of children, those who in
exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power
and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed
which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting
aside of the law of God which forbids all acts
intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in
which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the
grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve
in their wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of
Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the
Council of Trent: “Let no one be so rash as to assert that
which the Fathers of the Council have placed under
anathema, namely that there are precepts of God
impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the
impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do
what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that
He may help.”

•i

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

177

ARCHDIOCESE Of SAINT fAUt
CHANCEHY OFFICE

>44 OATTON AVKMUB
BAJKr TALIU MINMC4K/TA

February 10 o 1S40.

Uy dear lira. Vaahro;

both your lettere to me ao well as the
letter you sent Father Reardon laBt year con¬
cern lng the program of Father Lo Beau, at Set-
on Guild are moot praleeworthy.

Ae Boon ae I read your letter l&et year
I explained to Father Le Beau that he wae act¬
ing contrary to a prohibition I bad impoeed
on nil the clergy of the ArchdloceBe three
ytftrc itgo when the notorioue and malodorous
Rhythm Byutom wao gaining publicity out of
Chicago. I aloo forbade the Catholic book-*
aullera to have the pamphlet for sale.

you have the time to go to the course
a,,«'iii at Set on Guild and any reference is made
hy any HjunVor to the Rhyth-n System favorably
ym) will do n Horvlce to religion If you arise
nnd uny that you have been commissioned by the
AfobbUbop to denounce the speaker publicly be

{ 10 }

>>* |>1 In,i Of loymnn
*Hli litifl «

Vi.jy .

R. a. Vftnlir..,.

Ol*nUu*«, Uiiuiuiiotit.

H’fiA t n
yiiuru,

^€-<.4 __

|»I)U|> of Hn lot 1’Bul^.i

s"

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

178

Natural Family Planning (NFP) follows the same mentality and purpose of the
birth control pill (the Pill), but without the abortive effect. Simply said, NFP
never kills any babies, but it deliberately tries to prevent their conception.
Both NFP and the Pill are intended to avoid conception of a child. Only in rare
cases is a child still conceived through NFP or the Pill.

Even if the Pill were not also an “abortifacient”, it still contradicts nature and
God’s establishment for the marital act. It is a form of contraception that can
be used to purposely avoid the primary end of the marital act, i.e. the
procreation of children.

I will never forget in class when you told us that Marquette University has
become so exact with their Natural Family Planning method, that there is now
a 99 percent chance that a child will not be conceived. It is absolutely wrong to
take the place of God with life and death. Married Couples must be surrendered
to God’s Perfect Will and not plan when they will or will not conceive a child,
but instead leave all to God and God alone.

You know better than I, that there have been many Saints whose mothers have
died at birth, yet that was the Perfect Will of God.

Exceipt from The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort:

“Blanche of Castille, Queen of France, was deeply grieved because
twelve years after her marriage she was still childless. When St.
Dominic went to see her, he advised her to recite her rosary every day
and to ask God for the grace of motherhood; she faithfully carried out
his advice. In 1213, she gave birth to her eldest child, Philip, but the
child died in infancy. The Queen’s fervor was nowise dulled by this
disappointment; on the contrary, she sought Our Lady’s help more
than ever before. Thus, in 1215, Saint Louis was bom - the Prince
who was to become the glory of France and the model of all
Christian Kings.”

Do we think St. Dominic would have advised Blanche Queen of France to
practice NFP so she could bear a child? No, he would have told her today, as
he did then, that the Rosary and perseverance would bring her God’s will. And
God’s will was to bless her with a child who became Saint Louis, King of
France.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

179

3. Question: The Council of Trent says that Penance and Baptism are
necessary for salvation in the same way: “This sacrament of penance
is for those who have fallen after baptism necessary for salvation, as
baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated.” (Penance,
Chapter 2). If Penance and Baptism are of the same type of necessity
according to the Council, how do you deny that a desire can suffice for
Baptism, too?

Answer: The Sacraments are not all equal, and all the Sacraments are not
necessary to enter Heaven. No one can be saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism because it is a necessary means to be saved, but people can be saved
without Penance because it is not a necessary means for salvation but of
precept.

A. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canon 3 on the Sacraments, (1547):

“If any one shall say, that these seven sacraments are
equal to each other in such wise, as that one is not in any
way more worthy than another; let him he anathema.”

B. The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“All and each of the Sacraments, it is true, possess an
admirable efficacy given them by God; but it is well
worthy of remark, that all are not of equal necessity
or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the
same. Among them three are of paramount necessity,
although in all three this necessity is not of the same
kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism,
these words of the Redeemer unequivocally declare,

'Unless a man be bom again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (36)’

Penance is relative: Penance is necessary for those only
who have stained themselves after Baptism by any
mortal guilt. Without sincere repentance, their eternal
ruin is inevitable. Orders, too, although not necessary
to each of the faithful, are of absolute necessity to the
Church as a whole. (36) John, iii.”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

180

4. How do you interpret these words differently in relation to Penance,
allowing salvation to one who dies without confession but after
making a perfect act of contrition with the desire for Penance? If the
words are so absolute in your mind, how can they admit of desire in
relation to Penance? !

Answer: Please, read the answer to Question 3 again. The Sacraments of
Baptism and Penance are both necessary for salvation, but they are not of equal
necessity.

The Council states that we can regain justification after Baptism through
Penance or “at least a desire for it.” However, concerning anyone’s initial and
first justification, the Council defined that no one can be justified without the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Faith, because through
Baptism, Supernatural Faith, Hope, and Charity are infused into a soul, thereby
making a soul justified and uniting it perfectly with Christ, as a member of the
Church. Without Supernatural Faith, Hope, and Charity, which are brought
through the Sacrament of Baptism, no one has ever been justified.

(For Penance)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent:

“Those who through sin have forfeited the received
grace of justification (after baptism) can again be
justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to
obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery of
the grace lost. . . .Hence, it must be taught that the
repentance of a Christian after his fall is very
different from that at his baptism, and that it includes
. . . also the sacramental confession of those sins, at
least in desire, to be made in its season....”

(For Baptism)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent:

“The instrumental cause (of justification) is the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is the “sacrament of
faith,” without which no man was ever justified.”

(Denz. 799)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

181

(Faith, Hope, and Charity brought through the Sacrament of
Baptism)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent:

“Hence man through Jesus Christ, into Whom he is
ingrafted (at Baptism), receives in the said justification
together with the remission of sins, the gifts of faith,
hope and charity, all infused at the same time. For
faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither
unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living
member of His body . . . This faith, in accordance with
Apostolic Tradition, catechumens beg of the Church
before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for
“faith which bestows eternal life,” which without hope
and charity faith cannot bestow.” (Denz. 800)

Notice, Catechumens beg before baptism for the Faith that gives eternal life
that they receive at their baptism. They beg for Supernatural Faith because
they cannot receive Supernatural Faith (necessary for salvation) without the
Sacrament of Baptism. This Supernatural Faith (which includes Hope and
Charity) is brought through the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the
instrumental cause for our first justification.

Before Catechumens receive the Sacrament of Baptism they have a natural
faith. They received “faith by hearing” as a necessary preparation for
justification. This is a natural faith. They know a natural faith cannot save
them because Heaven is Supernatural, and they begin to beg the Church for

Supernatural Faith, which is brought through the Sacrament of Baptism.

The Sacrament of Baptism is the tool that God ordained to first bring
Supernatural Faith into our soul. Without Supernatural Faith no one has ever
been justified. This is basic Catholic Teaching.

5. If you say baptism of desire justifies a man but does not allow him to
be saved, how do you explain God sending a man to hell who has been
justified and is, therefore, in the state of grace?

Answer: You cannot first receive justification without the Sacrament of
Baptism. No one is first justified without Faith, Hope, and Charity, and no one
initially receives Faith, Hope, and Charity without the Sacrament of Baptism.
T his is why the Sacrament of Baptism is referred to as the “Sacrament of Faith”
because it brings us Supernatural Faith with Hope and Charity for the first time.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

182

1. The Sacrament of Baptism infuses Supernatural Faith.

2. Supernatural Faith includes Hope, and Charity.

3. This is the Faith that gives eternal life that Catechumens ask for before
they are baptized. They ask because they don’t have Supernatural Faith yet.

* When one receives the Sacrament of Baptism, he receives
Supernatural Faith, Hope, and Charity “at the same time”

(if he places no obstacles in his way).

Baptism removes Original sin, marks us as a Catholic, and infuses sanctifying
grace into our soul along with the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and
Charity for the first time. These are all effects of the Sacrament of Baptism.

A. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (1439):

“The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every
sin, original and actual, also of every punishment which
is due to the sin itself. For this reason, no satisfaction is
to be enjoined on the baptized for their past sins.”

(Denz. 696)

B. Pope Paul HI, Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (1546):

“If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which is conferred in Baptism, the guilt of
original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of
that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not
taken away, but is only brushed over and or not imputed:
let him be anathema.” (Denz. 792)

C. Pope Innocent III, Solemn Profession of Faith Prescribed to the
Waldensians (1208):

“And we believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, the
original sin which has been contracted as well as those
committed voluntarily.” (Denz. 424)

D. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (1439):

“For through Baptism we are spiritually reborn.”

(Denz. 695)

E. Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne (1312):

“All the faithful must profess only one baptism which
regenerates all who are baptized in Christ just as “one
God and one faith...” (Denz. 482)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

183

F. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantata Domino (1441):

“The Sacrament of Baptism... through which we are
snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted
among the sons of God.” (Denz. 712)

G. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (1546), Ch. 5:

“God hates nothing in the regenerated because there is
no condemnation for those truly buried with Christ by
means of Baptism into death (Rom.6:4), but putting off
the old man and putting on the new man which was
created according to God (Eph.4:22 ff; Col.3:9 f), are
made innocent, without stain, pure, guiltless and
beloved sons of God...”. (Denz.792)

H. Pope Innocent III, Apostolic Letter on Baptism (1201):

“But through the Sacrament of Baptism the guilt of one
made red by the Blood of Christ is remitted, and to the
kingdom of Heaven one also arrives, whose gate the
Blood of Christ has mercifully opened for the faithful.”

(Denz. 410)

I. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Decree for the Greeks (1439):

“It is likewise defined that the souls of those, who after
the reception of Baptism have incurred no stain of sin at
all, when released from the same bodies are immediately
received into heaven, and see clearly the one and Triune
God Himself as He is...”. (Denz. 693)

J. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence; Decree for the Armenians (1439):

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the
sacraments because it is the gateway to the spiritual life.

By it we are made members of Christ and His Body, the
Church. And since death entered the universe through
the first man, ‘unless we are reborn of water and the
Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter the kingdom
ofHeaven’ (John.3:5).” (Denz. 696)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

184

6. Question: Can you quote one Pope who says that God promises to give
the actual Sacrament of Baptism to one who has been justified by
baptism by desire?

Answer: Once again, you cannot first be justified without having received
the Sacrament of Baptism. In other words, we first receive God’s Life in our
soul through the Sacrament of Baptism. Without the Sacrament of Baptism
Original sin cannot be removed, and we cannot initially have remission of our
sins or sanctifying grace.

A. Pope Pius IX, Unam Sanctam (1302):

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to
maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also
apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with
simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation
nor the remission of sins.. .In her then is ‘one Lord, one
faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”

B. Benedict XIV, Bull Nuper ad Nos, Solemn Profession of Faith Prescribed
for Maronites, (1743):

“Likewise, I profess that Baptism is necessary for
salvation.” (Denz. 1470)

C. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognilum (1896):

“You ask how I prove this? From the very words of the
Lord! We can make no exceptions where no distinction
is made.”

D. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, On Justification, Chapter: XI, (1547):

“God does not command impossibilities, but by
commanding admonishes you both to do what you can
do, to pray for what you camiot do, and (He) assists you
that you may be able."

E. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, On Baptism, Canon 2 (1547):

“If anyone says that true and natural water is not
necessary for baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a
man be bom again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him
be anathema.”

( 17 }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

185

F. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, On Baptism, Canon 5, (1547):

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

G. The Baptismal rite of one of the Gclasian Sacramentary, named after Pope
St. Gelasius (492-496):

“Powerful is the mercy of God, mercy able both to lead
you, as you seek after the faith of Baptism, to the end of
your search, and bring you to us, who hand these
mysteries over to you.”

H. Pope Leo XIII ( Adiutricem : On the Rosary, 1895)

“Through you, O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, the
Apostles have preached salvation to the nations; through
you the demons have been put to rout and mankind has
been summoned back to Heaven; through you every
misguided creature held in the thrall of idols is led to
recognize the truth; through you have the faithful been
brought to the lover of holy Baptism and churches been
founded among every people."”

I. St. Ambrose from “De Mysteriis” Chapter 4:

“One is the baptism which the Church administers, of
water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens
need to be baptized. Nor does the mystery of
regeneration exist at all without water. Now, even the
catechumen believes; but unless he be baptized, he
cannot receive remission of his sins.”

7. Do you believe Canon Law is infallible?

Answer: No, Canon Law is not infallible in itself. The infallibility for Canon
Law rests on the footnotes and sources given for each Canon. These sources
must be looked up and observed if they come from an infallible source, such as
a Creed of the Church, a Council, or an Ex Cathedra Statement. I have a letter
from you which states that the sources for each particular Canon are what are
infallible but not the Canon itself.

{ 18 }

186

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

8. If you believe baptism by desire applies only to justification and not to
salvation how do you explain the following Canon which clearly says
baptism by desire applies to salvation? Canon 737: “Baptism, the door
to and the foundation of the sacraments, necessary for the salvation of
all persons in fact or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except
through a washing with true, natural water accompanied by the
prescribed verbal formula.”

Answer: For the third time, we cannot receive God’s life in our soul without
having first received the Sacrament of Baptism. This is done in order to 1)
remove Original sin, 2) receive sanctifying grace, 3) receive the three
theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and 4) mark as a Catholic with
an indelible mark. As you said in your previous letter, we must look at the
sources for each individual Canon for infallibility.

The infallible sources quoted for Canon 737 are stated from the Council of
Trent: Canons 2 and 5 on Baptism state that water is necessaiy for Baptism,
and Baptism is not optional but necessaiy for salvation. Also, Chapters 4 and 7
on Justification state: the Sacrament of Baptism is the cause of our initial
justification but that it cannot be effected without the laver in infants or its
desire in adults.

9. Do you believe the Church erred in the above Canon (737)?

Answer: No. The Church speaks through Her infallibility and this is found in
the Sources for each Canon, as you wrote in your previous letter. (I have a copy
if you would like one.) The infallible sources quoted for Canon 737 do not
teach baptism by desire but simply state that adults cannot be baptized against
their will. Even if the water is poured and the form is said, the adult does not
receive God’s life in his soul unless he wills it.

This is solemnly defined through the Catholic Church teachings: 1. The initial
cause of justification in a person’s soul is the Sacrament of Baptism, which
brings us Supernatural Faith with Hope and Charity for the first time (Chapter
7, Council of Trent). 2. Trent previously states in Chapter 4, that “justification
cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration (in infants) or a desire for
baptism (in adults).”

In other words, if an adult is baptized but he does not desire to be baptized, then
justification will not be effected (will not take place) in his soul. Therefore, you

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

187

cannot force baptism on an adult. For infants, however, the desire for baptism
is not necessary for justification to be effected (to take place) because they do
not have the use of reason to desire the Sacrament of Baptism.

A. Pope Innocent III, The Effect of Baptism and the Character:

“But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts,
receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament,
because to contradict expressly is more than to not
agree...” (Denz. 410-411)

B. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Exidtate Deo (1439):

“These sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it
upon those who receive them worthily.” (Denz. 695)

C. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canon VI on the Sacraments, (1547):

“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New
Law... do not confer that grace (which they signify) on
those who do not place an obstacle in the way...let him
be anathema.” (Denz. 849)

10. Question: Canon 1239,2: “Catechumens who through no fault of their
own die without Baptism, are to be counted as baptized.” This Canon
specifically says these catechumens died without baptism. If you
believe that all adults who die without baptism go to hell, how can the
Church permit them to have ecclesiastical burial?

Answer: It is not a personal belief that all souls who die unbaptized and,
therefore, with Original sin go to hell. The Solemn Definitions of the Catholic
Church define that souls who die with only Original sin go immediately into
hell but to be punished with different degrees. Our judgments can only be based
on the standards which the Catholic Church has defined.

A. Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, (1274):

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with original
sin go down into hell, but there they receive different
punishments.” (Denz. 464)

B. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (1439):

“...more over the souls of those who depart in actual mortal
sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to
undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

- ( 2 °)-

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

188

There is no source or footnote for Canon 1239 because there is no previous
record or teaching of the Catholic Church that permitted such a law. The
previous Tradition of the Catholic Church taught otherwise for one thousand
and fifly-four years that no prayers were permitted to be offered for a
Catechumen who had died without Baptism. This also teaches that there
are baptized Catechumens because the Church forbids us to pray for
Catechumens “who have died without the Sacrament of Baptism.”

C. The Council of Braga (563 A.D.):

“Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice nor the
service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens
who have died without baptism.”

D. St. Ambrose, De Mysteriis, Chapter 4:

“One is the baptism which the Church administers, of
water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens
need to be baptized. Nor does the mystery of
regeneration exist at all without water. Now, even the
catechumen believes; but unless he be baptized, he
cannot receive remission of his sins.”

E. Pope St. Zosimus, Apostolic Letter to the Oriental Churches (418):

“Not one of our children is held not guilty until he is
freed through Baptism.” (Denz. 109a)

F. Pope St. Leo the Great (Epistle XV: 10):

“Since by the transgression of the first man, the whole
progeny of the human race is vitiated; no one can be
freed from the condition of the old man except by the
sacrament of the Baptism of Christ.”

G. Pope St. Gregory the Great (Moralia IV, Preface 3):

“Whoever is not loosed by the waters of rebirth remains
bound by the first chain of guilt.”

II. Pope Leo IV, Council of Valence III (855):

“All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit, and through this are truly
incorporated into the Church.” (Denz. 324)

( 21 }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

11. If you believe baptism of desire applies only to justification and not to
salvation how do you explain the following which clearly says baptism
of desire applies to salvation? Rituale Romanum approved by Pope
Pius XI in 1925: “Holy Baptism, is the gateway of the Christian religion
and of eternal life, which holds the first place among the other
sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, is necessary to all in
fact or at least in desire for salvation, as the Truth Himself testifies in
these words: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3, 5).”

Answer: There is no need to continue to distinguish between justification and
salvation because the Church has solemnly defined that without the Sacrament
of Baptism no one can first receive Supernatural Faith and without Supernatural
Faith no one can be justified (Sess. 6, Ch. 7 Council of Trent).

Your Excellency, please:

FIRST, define your definition for the terms “cause” (Sess. 6, Ch. 7) and
“cannot be effected” (Sess. 6, Ch, 4).

THEN, please answer the following questions:

Q. What is the cause or (what brings about) justification in a person’s soul?

A. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter 7, titled, “Justification and
its Causes”:

“The instrumental cause (of justification) is the Sacrament of
Baptism, which is the “sacrament of faith,” without which no
man was ever justified.” (Denz. 799)

Q. What happens to an adult who is baptized but does not desire to be baptized?

What about an infant?

A. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter 4, “A Brief Description of
Justification of the Sinner”:

“This translation (justification) however cannot, since the
promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver
of regeneration (infants) or its desire (in adults), as it is written:
‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Floly Ghost he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (added parentheses)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

190

* The Sacrament of Baptism is the instrument that is used to cause justification
in infants and adults.

* However, in an infant’s soul, justification will not take effect (cannot be
effected) without the laver of regeneration.

* Further, in an adult’s soul, justification will not take effect (camiot be
effected) without his desire for baptism.

Meaning, if an adult is baptized but does not desire to be
baptized, then justification will not take place in his soul;
therefore, he is not justified.

The desire for baptism in an adult’s soul is necessary to bring
the cause (Baptism) into effect.

EXAMPLES:

Q. What causes a cordless drill to run?

A. Electric Energy produced from the energy of the battery and coils.

Q. How will this be effected?

A. By pulling the button on the drill.

Obviously, the pulling of a button on a drill is not the cause for the drill to
produce power. To know this, simply grab a cordless drill and pull the
button without the battery attached. The drill will not produce power and
nothing will happen. Pulling the button is not the cause of giving the drill
power; pulling the button simply brings the cause into effect.

Lastly, attach the battery and pull the button.

The cause (the battery producing power through the coils) is effected (takes
place) by the pulling of the button.

OR

Q. What causes a car to run?

A. Energy, which is known as combustion. Combustion causes a
car to be put into motion.

Q. What happens if one does not turn the key to turn the car on or
push the gas pedal?

A, The cause (combustion) will not be effected (will not take effect).

The car will not move into motion.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

191

The turning of a key or pushing of a pedal does not cause a car to run; it
simply brings the cause into effect. To know this simply push the gas pedal
in the car when the car is not on and see that nothing will happen.

The same is true for the Sacrament of Baptism. The Sacrament of Baptism is
the instrumental cause of justification. But if an adult does not desire baptism,
then justification will not take place (be effected) in his soul.

* Nowhere does the Council of Trent state that the desire for baptism is the
cause for our justification.

Q. What is the cause of first bringing justification into an adult’s soul?

A. The Sacrament of Baptism.

Q. What happens to an adult who is baptized but does not desire baptism?
A. Justification will not be effected in the adult’s soul.

Obviously, the desire for baptism is not the cause of justification in an adult’s
soul. The cause of justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. This cause
(baptism) will not be brought into effect (be effected) without his desire for
baptism.

Q. What about infants?

Q. What is the cause of initially bringing justification into their soul?

A. The Sacrament of Baptism.

An infant cannot have a desire for baptism. Therefore, an infant’s justification
cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration alone.

The Council of Trent defined that the cause for justification in all people is the
Sacrament of Baptism, but that justification cannot be brought into effect
(cannot be effected) without the laver of regeneration (infants) or its desire (in
adults).

Simply read Trent again, especially Chapters 4 through 7 which speak for
themselves.

Besides the teachings on justification, the Church has defined that there is one
universal church of the faithful, and there is no salvation outside of it. She
has also defined that through baptism with water all the multitude of the
faithful are incorporated into the Church. This eliminates those people being
invisibly “attached” to the soul of the Church through baptism by desire.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

192

A. Pope Innocent III, Lateran Council (1215):

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which no one at all is saved.”

B. Pope Leo IV, Council of Valence III (855):

“All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit, and through this are truly
incorporated into the Church.” (Denz. 324)

C. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence; Decree for the Armenians (1439):

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the
sacraments because it is the gateway to the spiritual life.

By it we are made members of Christ and His Body, the
Church. And since death entered the universe through
the first man, "unless we are reborn of water and the
Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, ‘enter the kingdom
ofHeaven’ (John.3:5).” (Denz. 696)

D. Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne (1311-12):

“Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who
are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by
all, just as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5),
which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Denz. 482)

12. Do you believe Pius XI erred in approving this Rituale?

Answer: Yes, someone erred when they inserted “or at least its desire” in such
a way because this contradicts previous Solemn Teachings of the Catholic
Church (see definitions for #11 above). The previous ritual used throughout
the centuries of the Church did not have “or at least its desire” inserted.

13. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “On adults, however, the
Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism
at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The
delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants,
which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident
make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their

- ( 25 )-

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

193

intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance
for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (TAN Books)

Since this catechism was written by those who lived at the time of the
Council and by order of the Pope, they would have known the true
meaning of the Canons on Baptism from the Council of Trent. Do you
believe the writers of this catechism are wrong and you are right? If
not, why do you not accept their teaching?

Answer: No, I do not believe the writers of the Catechism of the Council of
Trent are wrong. The next line in the catechism (which has been omitted in
your question) states how the delay for baptism in adults is advantageous
because it further proves who actually has the proper dispositions and sincere
desire to be baptized, from those who do not. The last sentence in the same
chapter (also omitted in your question) states, "Finally, when Baptism is
administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter
and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.”
God brings the Sacrament of Baptism to those who truly desire it. A sudden
accident or event may hinder someone for a certain time to be baptized, or God
may take his life through death; but again, this only proves who truly has the
proper dispositions and who does not. If someone has a true desire to be
baptized (a true desire only God knows), then God will bring him the Sacrament
of Baptism to mark him as a Catholic and to incorporate him into the Church.
How do we know that God will bring all people the Sacrament of Baptism?
Because, this is an infallible truth of the Catholic Faith and God has promised
us through His teachings and example. God is not a deceiver and is not a liar.
God is eternally faithful to His Words and promises.

A. Jesus Christ was baptized by St. John: (Matthew Ch. 3, 16-17)

“And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo,
the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God
descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from
heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

B. Jesus Christ said as a Divine Promise: (John 3, 5)

“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be bom
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God.”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

194

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church has infallibly defined:

C. Pope Leo IV, Council of Valence III (855):

“All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from water
and the Holy Spirit (John 3: 5), and through this are truly
incorporated into the Church.” (Denz. 324)

The catechism was written to defend what the Council had previously solemnly
defined. I do not accept “your interpretation” claiming baptism by desire
because it contradicts the Solemn Definitions of the Council of Trent (1547 -
Pope Paul III), Council of Florence (1439 - Pope Eugene IV), Council of
Valence (855 - Pope Leo IV), Council of Vienne (1312 - Pope Clement V),
Council of Chalcedon (451 — Pope Leo the Great), the Nicene Creed (325 -
Pope St Sylvester), the Bull of Pope Boniface (1302), and many other teachings
of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism teaches what the Council solemnly defined.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

195

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,

On Baptism, Canon 2 (1547):

“If anyone says that true and
natural water is not necessary for
baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord
Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be bom
again of water and the Holy Ghost,'
(10), let him be anathema.”
(Footnote 10 - John 3, 5)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,

On Baptism, Canon 5, (1547):

“If anyone says that baptism is
optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation, let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,

On Justification, Chapter 7 (1547):

“Hence man through Jesus Christ,
into Whom he is ingrafted (at
Baptism), receives in the said
justification together with the
remission of sins, the gifts of faith,
hope and charity, all infused at the
same time. For faith, unless hope
and charity be added thereto,
neither unites man perfectly with
Christ, nor makes him a living
member of His body. (Denz. 800)

Catechism of the Council of
Trent:

“Thus, it follows that Baptism may
be rightly and accurately defined:
The Sacrament of regeneration by
water in the word.” (pg. 163)

“The law of Baptism, as established
by our Lord, extends to all, so that
unless they are regenerated to God
through the grace of baptism, be their
parents Christian or infidels, they are
bom to eternal misery and
destruction...” (pgs. 176-177)

“The universal and absolute
necessity of Baptism, these words of
the Redeemer unequivocally declare,
'Unless a man be bom again of water
and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God. (John 3,5)”
(pg. 154)

Catechism of the Council of
Trent

“In the first place we who by
Baptism are united to, and become
members of Christ’s body, should
not be more honored than our head.”
(pg. 186)

“This grace is accompanied by a
most splendid hain of all virtues,
which are divinely infused into the
soul along with grace... .By Baptism
we are also united to Christ, as
members to their Head.” (pg. 188)

{ 28 j

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

196

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
On Justification, Chapter 5:

“The Necessity of Preparation
for Justification in Adults, and
Whence It Proceeds”

“It is furthermore declared that in
adults the beginning of that
justification must proceed from a
predisposing grace of God. . . (that
they) may be disposed through His
quickening and helping grace to
convert themselves to their own
justification by freely assenting to
and cooperating with that grace...”
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
On Justification, Chapter 6:

“The Manner of Preparation”

“Now, they (the adults) are disposed
to justice when aroused and aided by
divine grace, receiving grace by
hearing... they believing to be true
what has been divinely revealed and
promised... understand themselves to
be sinners, they, by turning
themselves from the fear of divine
justice... consider the mercy of God,
are raised to hope...they begin to
love Him as the fountain of all justice
and on that account are moved
against sin...that is, by that
repentance that must be performed
before baptism; finally, when they
resolve to receive baptism, to begin a
new life and to keep the
commandments of God.”

Catechism of the Council of
Trent

“Dispositions for Baptism”

“The faithful are also to be instructed
in the necessary dispositions for
Baptism. In the first place they must
desire and intend to receive it...it is
fit that it be administered to those
only who receive it of their own free
will and accord; it is to be forced
upon none.” (pg. 180)

“Besides a wish to be baptized, in
order to obtain the grace of the
sacrament, faith is also necessary.
Our Lord and Savior has said, “He
that believes and is baptized shall be
saved.” (pg. 181)

“Another necessary condition is
repentance for past sins, and a fixed
determination to avoid all sin in the
future. Should anyone desire
baptism and be unwilling to correct
the habit of sinning, he should be
altogether rejected. For nothing is so
opposed to the grace and power of
Baptism as the intention and puipose
of those who resolve to never
abandon sin.” (pg. 181)

{ 29 )

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

197

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,

On Justification, Chapter 7:

“Justification and Its Causes”

“This disposition or preparation is
followed by justification itself which
is not only a remission of sins but
also the sanctification and renewal of
the inward man...that he may be an
heir according to hope of life
everlasting. The causes of this
justification are...the instrumental
cause is the Sacrament of Baptism,
which is the sacrament of faith,
without which no man was ever
justified...”

Catechism of the Council of
Trent

“Our souls are replenished with
divine grace, by which we are
rendered just and children of God
and are made heirs to eternal
salvation. For it is written: He that
believeth and is baptized, shall be
saved, and the Apostle testifies that
the Church is cleansed by the laver of
water in the word of life.” (pg. 188)

{ 30 }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

198

14. Do you accept the following teaching of Pius IX which nowhere
mentions actual baptism in saying these persons can be saved? How
does this fit with your denial of salvation through baptism by desire?
“We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance in
regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the
natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if
they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful
life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For
God, who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls,
the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with
his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary
fault to suffer eternal punishment.”

Answer: Yes, I accept the following letter from Pope Pius IX. I do not accept
your interpretation of the letter “claiming baptism by desire” over the Solemn
Definitions of the Catholic Church. You claim that God will save people
without the Sacraments (condemned by the Council of Trent) and more
specifically without the Sacrament of Baptism to make one a member of the
Catholic Church (condemned by the Councils of: Valence, Vienne, Florence,
and Trent). This is obstinately opposing the authority and Definitions of the
Church. It is stubbornly separating your teachings from the unity of the Church
and from the valid successors of Peter.

“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them -, but if they fear
God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish
them with the necessary means of salvation, even so to send, if needed, an angel
to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through
inculpable ignorance.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

“Not even the ones who are able to say that they did not hear the Gospel of fc
Christ will free themselves from condemnation, since faith depends on i 1
hearing.” (St. Augustine)

Baptism and Faith are a necessary means for salvation:

A. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, (1441):

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those
not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans,
but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

199

become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
angels” (Matt. 25: 41), unless before the end of life the
same have been added to the flock...” (Denz. 714)

B. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence; Decree for the Armenians (1439):

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the
sacraments because it is the gateway to the spiritual life.

By it we are made members of Christ and His Body, the
Church. And since death entered the universe through
the first man, "unless we are reborn of water and the
Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, ‘enter the kingdom
of Heaven’ (John.3:5).” (Denz. 696)

C. The Athanasian Creed:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith
except everyone do keep whole and undefiled; without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic
faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity . . . Furthermore, it is necessary to
everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the
Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ ... Who suffered
for our salvation ... And they that have done good shall
go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil,
into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith; which
except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be
saved.”

D. Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, (1274):

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with
original sin go down into hell, but there they receive
different punishments.” (Denz. 464)

E. Pope St. Zosiinus, Apostolic Letter to the Oriental Churches (418):

“Not one of our children is held not guilty until he is
freed through Baptism.” (Denz. 109a)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

200

--

F. Pope St. Leo the Great (Epistle XV: 10):

“Since by the transgression of the first man, the whole
progeny of the human race is vitiated; no one can be
freed from the condition of the old man except by the
sacrament of the Baptism of Christ.”

1 G. Pope St. Gregory the Great (Moralia IV, Preface 3):

“Whoever is not loosed by the waters of rebirth remains
bound by the first chain of guilt.”

H. Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne (1311-12):

“Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who
are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by
all, just as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5),
which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Denz. 482)

God in His infinite mercy and power of Divine light and grace will not permit
someone to die without bringing him into the Catholic Church through the
Sacrament of Baptism. Pope Pius IX wrote in Singulari Quadam, December 9,

1854, a similar' encyclical and he concluded with these words:

“As long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass
which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance
with Catholic doctrine, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’

(Eph. 4: 5); to seek further is not permitted.”

15. St. Thomas’ theology has been held in high regard by the Pope for
centuries and Leo XIII ordered it to be used in seminaries. If he erred
against a dogma of the Church as you say, how do you explain that not
one pope pointed this out or ordered this error expunged?

Answer:

A. Pope Pius XII declared in an Allocution:

“The Church has never accepted even the most holy and
most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a
single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The
Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

201

Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but,
by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the
Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition
living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to
salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection
and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth.”

(Gregorian University, Oct. 17,1953; PTC 1351)

B. Errors of the Jansenists, 1690 A.D., Condemned Proposition #30:

“When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in
Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it,
disregarding any bull of the pope.” (This is condemned)

Therefore, neither St. Thomas, nor any non-papal Doctor or Father of the
Church, on his own, represents the binding teaching authority of Christ and His
Church. If you would like to hold a speculation from St. Thomas over the
Solemn Definitions of the Catholic Church, then that is your erroneous
decision. The Church has declared that we need the Sacrament of Baptism to
enter heaven and Baptism includes water. To hold St. Thomas above the
infallible definitions of the Church, we would also deny the Immaculate
Conception of Our Lady (Summa Theologia, III, Q.27, Art.2, ad.4). The
Supreme Magisterium of the Church defined as a Dogma the “Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” 1854, Pope Pius IX. This supersedes
St. Thomas’s speculation that Our Lady was conceived with original sin; just
as the Supreme Magisterium overruled St. Thomas’s speculation on baptism by
desire.

Queen Isabella told her confessor as he attempted to answer a question she had
presented to him, “Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as
they were. I want to know what the Church says.”

The Church teaches there is one Baptism, and this one baptism includes water,
and through this one baptism all the multitude of the faithful are incorporated
into the Church.

C. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Canon 2):

“If anyone says that true and natural water is not
necessary for baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

202

man be bom again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn.

3:5): let him be anathema.” (Dcnz. 858)

* Please note, the Canon above does NOT state that water is necessaiy for the
“sacrament of baptism”, but states that water is necessary for “baptism”.

You falsely claim and teach that the word baptism includes three forms: the
sacrament of baptism (with water), baptism by desire (no water), and baptism
by blood (no water).

However, the Church has stated (Canon above): “If anyone says water is not
necessary for baptism...let you be anathema.”

A simple question for you:

How can you teach that baptism has three forms (two of which do not include
water), when the Church has defined that water is necessary for baptism?

There is only one answer to such simple a question:

You cannot teach or believe baptism has three forms because the Church
condemns any form of baptism without water. This excludes baptisms by
desire, by blood, using milk, alcohol, coffee, juice, etc.

D. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Canon 5):

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

(Denz. 861)

E. Pope Leo IV (847-55), Council of Valence III (855):

“All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit (John 3, 5), and through this
are truly incorporated into the Chur ch.” (Denz. 324)

F. Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne (1311-12):

“Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who
are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by
all, just as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5),
which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Denz. 482)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

203

16. Pope Gregory XVI, said in the Bull of Canonization for St. Alphonsus:
“What deserves to be particularly noticed is, that after a careful
examination of his works, it has been ascertained that they all,
notwithstanding their number or extent, may be perused by the
faithful with the most perfect safety.” Do you believe this Pope erred
in stating this? Why would he say this if St. Alphonsus taught a
doctrine condemned by Trent as you say?

Answer: No, I do not believe the Pope erred in stating this. Because we can
peruse the writings of St. Alphonsus with “perfect safety” does not mean we
can use his writings over the Definitions of the Catholic Church. It is the same
with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine in your above question. Fallible
men, as holy and good as they were, do not come before the infallibility of the
Church (Creeds, Councils, and Ex Cathedra statements).

Venerable Maiy Agreda (1602-1665), “Mystical City of God” ‘the
Conception’):

“Very often I permit and cause differences of opinion among the
doctors and teachers. Thus, some of them maintain what is true, and
others, according to their natural disposition, defend what is doubtful.
Others still again are permitted to say even what is not true, though
not in open contradiction to the veiled truths of faith which all must
hold. Some also teach what is possible according to their supposition.

By this varied light, truth is traced, and the mysteries of faith become
more manifest. Doubt serves as a stimulus to the understanding for
the investigation of truth. Therefore, controversies of teachers fulfill a
proper and holy end. They are also permitted in order to make known
that real knowledge dwells in My Church more than in the combined
study of all the holy and perfect teachers.”

Here are a few statements made by certain Saints denying baptism by desire;
the Catholic Church has stated that we can use their writings with perfect safety
as well:

A. St. Gregory Nanzianzen, Oration of the Holy Lights:

“Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly
animal or bestial; others honor Baptism but they delay;
some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

204

passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism
because of infancy or some voluntary circumstance
which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they
desire it. I think the first group will have to suffer
punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for
their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also
be punished, but less, because it was not through
wickedness so much as foolishness that brought their
failure. The third group will be neither glorified, nor
punished; for, although unsealed, they are not wicked.

If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit
murder solely by his intention and without any act of
murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one
who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.
But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the
latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal power with
actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to desire
Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory! Do you
suffer by not attaining the actual Glory, so long as you
have a desire for it? I cannot see it!”

The Roman Breviary, May 9th concerning St. Gregory Nazianzen:

“In the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing
to be found in his writings which is not conformable to
true piety and Catholic faith, or which anyone could
reasonably call in question.”

B. St. Ambrose, De Mysteriis, Chapter 4:

“One is the baptism which the Church administers, of water
and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be
baptized. Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all
without water. Now, even the catechumen believes; but unless
he be baptized, he cannot receive remission of his sins.”

“No one ascends into the kingdom of Heaven except by the
Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not
infants, nor anyone hindered by any necessity. When the Lord

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

205

Jesus came to John and John said, ‘I ought to be baptized by
Thee, and dost Thou come to me?’ Jesus said: ‘Permit it to be
so for now. For this it becometh us to fulfill all
justice’ (Matt. 3, 14-15). Behold how all justice rests on
Baptism.”

“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood...
For no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except
through the Sacrament of Baptism... ‘Unless a man be bom
again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’”

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism
arc one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you
withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism
is not valid. For what is the water without the cross
of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect.
Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of
regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be bom again
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God.’”

“The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself
but to cleanse the waters, so that the waters, cleansed by the
flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the
power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the
washing of Christ lays aside his sins.”

C. St. Augustine, On John XIII, tract VII:

“How many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus
lost forever. When we come into the sight of God, no one will
say, ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized,
while that man, although he lived properly as a catechumen,
was lulled in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for
rewards, and you will find nothing but punishment. Of what
use would repentance be, if Baptism did not follow? No matter
what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the
burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been
baptized.”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

206

17. Can you quote one Pope or Council which says: “If anyone says you
can get to heaven by baptism of desire without the actual reception of
the sacrament, let him be anathema.”?

Answer: I am very surprised you asked this question knowing the Church
never specifically condemns all false teachings by name. For example, can you
show me one Pope or Council that says:

“If anyone says that the Novus Ordo, Vatican II Church is a false
religion, let him be anathema.”

“If anyone says Hinduism or Buddhism or Satanism or 7 lh Day
Adventistism or Mormonism or Atheism, etc. is a true religion, let him
be anathema.”

You will not find these specifically condemned by name, but you will find:

“I am the Lord Thy God, and thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.”
This Divine Command excludes all other religions. The Church does not need
to name all false religions because the list would be endless. There are new
religions being founded every day. How could the Church condemn by name
the abundance of false religions daily coming into existence?

The Church condemns all false religions by unequivocally stating: “The
Catholic Church is the one true Church and there is no salvation outside of it”.
This beautiful and powerful teaching of the Catholic Church condemns all other
false religions that may come into existence till the end of time.

A simple example:

When a father and mother of a family are leaving the home for a short period
of time, they do not have to tell their children, “Do not play in the street, do not
go to the neighbors, do not climb the fence, do not drive the tractor, do not go
to the store, do not ride your bike, do not play in the mud, do not play on the
grass, do not throw rocks at the power line, do not play with the sprinkler, do
not hit the garage, do not break the window, do not climb the tree, do not pick
the apples, etc. etc.”

If a father and mother had to list everything by name which the children are not
supposed to do, then the list would be never-ending. Instead, the father and
mother simply say, “Do not leave the house while we are gone.” This one
command F.XCLUDES all other possibilities outside the house.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

207

There is no other way the Catholic Church can teach then command what we
must do to be saved.

The Church’s Solemn Magisterium has defined that there is no salvation
outside the Catholic Church. This condemns all other religions. She does not
need to condemn each false religion by name when She has defined:

A. Pope Innocent Ill, Lateran Council (1215):

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful ,
outside of which no one at all is saved.”

B. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, (1441):

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those
not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans,
but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot
become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into
everlasting fire which was prepare for the devil and his
angels” (Matt. 25: 41), unless before the end of life the
same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of
the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of
benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgivings, and
other functions of piety and exercises of Christian
service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has
shed Iris blood for the name of Christ, can be saved,
unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714)

C. Pope Boniface, Unam Sanctam (1302):

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to
maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also
apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with
simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation
nor the remission of sins.. .In her then is ‘one Lord, one
faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

208

The same is true for the Sacraments and especially the Sacrament of Baptism.
God has commanded, “Unless we are bom again of water and the Holy Ghost
we cannot enter Heaven,” (John 3:5) This positively excludes any other
possibility for baptism.

Again, I cannot show you where a Pope or Council has positively condemned
by name “baptism by desire”, but this is not necessary because the Church has
defined that we need the Sacraments to enter Heaven, that water is necessary
for Baptism, and that Baptism is necessary for salvation. These
definitions positively condemn any other notion of being saved without the
(necessary) Sacraments, without Baptism, and without water for Baptism.

D. Pope Paul IV, Council of Trent, Profession of Faith (1565):

“.. .1 also acknowledge that there are truly and properly
seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus
Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the
salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary
for each individual to receive them all...”.

E. Pope Leo IV (847-55), Council of Valence HI (855):

"All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5), and through this
are truly incorporated into the Church.” (Denz. 324)

F. Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon I (451):

“There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood; and these three are one” (/ John
5:8). This means the Spirit of sanctification, and the
blood of redemption, and the water of Baptism, which
three things are one and remain undivided, and not
one of them is separated from union with the others.”

G. Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne (1311-12):

“Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who
are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by
all, just as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5),
which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Denz. 482)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

209

H. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):

“In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily
required, namely: the words and the element (water)...

You ought not to doubt that they do not have true
Baptism in which one of them is missing.” (Denz. 412)

I. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Canon 2):

“If anyone says that true and natural water is not
necessary for baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be bom again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn.

3:5): let him be anathema.” (Denz. 858)

J. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Canon 5):

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

(Denz. 861)

K. Pope St. Innocent I (401-17) declared:

“That the rewards of eternal life are given without
Baptism is very foolish.” (Epistle 29).

L. Benedict XIV, Bull Nuper ad Nos, Solemn Profession of Faith Prescribed
for Maronites, (1743):

“Likewise, I profess that Baptism is necessary for
salvation.” (Denz. 1470)

M. Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam, (1854):

“As long as we are on earth, weighed down by this
mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most
firmly that, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, there
is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4: 5); to seek
further is not permitted.”

18. Do you believe that theologians after the Council of Trent’s decrees on
Baptism (including Doctors of the Church and many saints) have all
misunderstood what the Council meant? How could they all be

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

wrong? How many theologians can you quote after Trent who claim
that the Council did not teach baptism of desire as a means of
salvation?

Answer: First, they are not all wrong. On the following pages is an example
by St. Peter Canisius, a Doctor of the Church. He wrote immediately after the
Council of Trent and did not teach baptism by desire.

Second, you must take your question to God and ask Him, “How can they all
be wrong?” I do not have an answer for why “a majority of people” have been
wrong. I do know, however, that throughout the Old and New Testament God
does not take into consideration the number of people or the “majority” of
people when teaching what is right or wrong. Simply read the Old Testament
and see how the majority were consistently wrong: a) all in Sodom and
Gomorrah were destroyed, b) only two out of all the Jews were permitted to see
the Promised Land, and 3) only eight souls were preserved in the Flood out of
the entire world! St. Jerome said, “One in every hundred Priests is saved.” In
the year 1153 A.D. 55,000 souls were judged in one day: St. Bernard and a
Deacon went straight to heaven, three went to Purgatory, and the rest were
damned. And this was in a time when Catholicism was flourishing throughout
the world! Further, another chronicle by a woman who died in Germany states
that 66,000 souls were judged and of those 66,000 only three were saved. Is
this not a great mystery of the Catholic Church—why a majority of people are
wrong and damned? Can we reject a mystery of the Catholic Church because
it is hard and difficult to understand?

Ask Jesus Christ Himself why the majority did not follow Him when He was
on this earth. Ask Him what He meant when He stated:

“Many are called, but few are chosen.”

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad
is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who
go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that
leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”

I pray that you will look objectively at what the Church has solemnly defined
and not be influenced by what the “majority of people” believe or do. The
Church is not a democracy and is not based on the rules of the majority.

{ 43 }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

211

Question: How many theologians can you quote after Trent who claim that
the Council did not teach baptism of desire as a means of salvation?

Answer: St. Peter Canisius Doctor of the Church wrote immediately after the
Council of Trent. His catechism was used all throughout Germany, hi fact, the
bishops of Germany refused at Vatican Council I in 1870 to adopt any other
Catechism. St. Peter Canisius makes no mention of “three baptisms” and
quotes the Council of Trent to prove that Baptism with water is necessaiy for
all people and that justification cannot be effected without the laver (in infants)
or its desire (in adults). St. Ambrose is also referenced and states that a
Catechumen, no matter how much he believes, cannot have remission of his
sins without fust receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

212

" ’Summa Doctrinae Christianae, ’
cum Appendice de Hominis Lapsu et
Justificatione Secundum Sententiam et
Doctrinam Concilii Tridentini, ex
Doctoris Petri Canisii. ” (Pg. 80)

De baptsimi Sacramento.

Quid est baptismus, et an cunctis
necessarius?

I.

“*) Est hoc novae legis primum et
maxime necessarium Sacramentum, in
ablutione coiporis exteriore, et
legitima verborum enuntiatione, juxta
CHRISTI institutionem, consistens.
Necessarium inquam sacramentum
non solum a) adultis, scd etiam b)
parvulis, ac simul eis efficax ad salute
aeternam consequendam.”

*) Act. 2, Marc. 16, 16. Joann. 3, 22;
4, 2. Tit. 3, 5. Matth. 28, 19. Ephes. 5,
25.26. 1. Petr. 3, 20. 21. a)Trid.Sess.
6. C. 4. et sess. 7. Can. 5. De baptism.
Aug. tract. 13. In Joann. Ambr. de
myst. Init. C. 4. Cl. cp. 4. Ad Julium.

“’Summary of Christian Doctrine,’
with an Appendix of the Fall of Man
and Justification According to the
Teaching and Doctrine of the Council
of Trent, from the Doctor Peter
Canisius.” (pg. 80)

Concerning the Sacrament of
Baptism.

What is baptism, and is it
necessary?

1 .

“*) Baptism is the first and most
necessary Sacrament of the new law, it
consists in the external washing of the
body, and the announcing of the
legitimate words, as Christ has
instituted it. The sacrament is not only
necessary for a) adults, but also b) for
infants, to bring them to eternal
salvation.

Footnotes:

*) Acts of the Apostles 2: 58

-St. Mark 16: 16: “He who believes
and is baptized shall be saved, he who
does not believe shall be damned.”

-John 3, 22: “After these things
Jesus and his disciples came into the
land of Judea: and there he abode with
them, and baptized.”

-John 4: 2: “Though Jesus himself
did not baptize, but his disciples”

-Titus 3, 5: “Not by the works of
justice, which we have done, but
according to his mercy, he saved us, by (|
the laver of regeneration, and
renovation of the Holy Ghost”

{ « )

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

213

-Matthew 28: 19: “Going therefore,
teach ye all nations; baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.”

-Ephesians 5: 25-26: “Husbands,
love your wives, as Christ also loved
the church, and delivered himself up
for it: That he might sanctify it,
cleansing it by the laver of water in the
word of life”

-1 Peter 3, 20-21: “Which had been
some time incredulous, when they
waited for the patience of God in the
days of Noe, when the ark was a
building: wherein a few, that is, eight
souls, were saved by water.
Whereunto baptism being of the like
form, now saveth you also: not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the examination of a good
conscience towards God by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
a) -Council of Trent, Session 6,
Chapter 4: “This translation
(justification) however cannot, since
the promulgation of the Gospel, be
effected except through the laver of
regeneration or its desire, as it is
written: Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.”

-Council of Trent, Canon 5, On
Baptism: ““If anyone says that baptism
is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation, let him be anathema.”

-Augustine Tract. 13, Concerning
John.

-Ambrose. De Mysteriis, Chapter
4: “One is the baptism which the
Church administers, of water and the
Holy Ghost, with which catechumens
need to be baptized. Nor does the
mystery of regeneration exist at all
without water. Now, even the
catechumen believes; but unless he be
baptized, he cannot receive remission
of his sins.”

-Pope Clement, letter 4 to Julius

t 46 }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

214

In addition to asking me questions, please ask yourself:

Do you deny a Catholic Dogma because you are influenced by the “number of
people?” Do you think the Catholic Church is a Democratic Society made up
of fallible bishops and theologians, or is the Church a Monarchial Society
founded by Christ upon the infallibility of Peter, as its Head and Supreme
Ruler?

The Church is not a Democracy. The Church is a Monarchial Society.

The Catholic Church follows a similar structure as our U.S. Judicial Court
System. When a case is worked through our judicial court system, county
courts, state courts, and federal courts can make rulings and decisions.
However, when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, all previous lower court
rulings are meaningless if they in any way contradict the Supreme Court’s
decision. A hundred lower court rulings cannot overrule the Supreme Court.

Likewise, the Church has made the ruling through Her Supreme Solemn
Magisterium that there is “One indeed Universal Church of the faithful, outside
of which there is no salvation.” Further, the Church has defined, “All the
multitude of the faithful are regenerated from water and the Holy Spirit, and
through this are truly incorporated into the Church.” This is the Supreme
Solemn Magisterium’s (Supreme Court’s) final ruling for the Catholic Church.
Any other lower authority: bishops, theologians, saints, etc. can never overturn
the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. The Church is not a democracy.

The Definitions of the Catholic Church read for themselves. They arc to be
understood as they were once defined (and have been previously stated). Please
take the time to read them. I pray you will see how simple the Catholic Faith is
and how subtle and incremental Satan is in deceiving a majority as you are
doing today.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

215

1. ) Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832):

“Nothing which has been defined is to be withdrawn, or
changed, or added to, but must be kept unadulterated as
to content and expression.”

2. ) Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, (1870):

“The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has
not been proposed to human intelligences to be
perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system,
but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ
to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.

Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which
our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is
this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a
more profound comprehension of the truth.”

3. ) Pope Leo IV (847-55), Council of Valence III (855):

"All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit, and through this are truly
incorporated into the Church.” (Denz. 324)

4. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence; Decree for the Armenians (1439):

“Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the
sacraments because it is the gateway to the spiritual life.

By it we are made members of Christ and His Body, the
Church. And since death entered the universe through
the first man, "unless we are reborn of water and the
Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, ‘enter the kingdom
of Heaven’ (John.3:5).” (Denz. 696)

5. ) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Canon 2):

“If anyone says that true and natural water is not
necessary for baptism and thus twists into some
metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a
man be bom again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn.

3:5): let him be anathema.” (Denz. 858)

6. ) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1547), Canons on Baptism (Canon 5):

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

216

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

(Denz. 861)

7. ) Pope Julius III, Council of Trent (1551), Session on Penance, Chapter 4:

“The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not
first entered it through the gateway of baptism. For,
what have I, saith the Apostle, to do to judge them that
are without? It is otherwise with those who are of the
household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once,
by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own
body." (Denz. 895)

8. ) Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon I (451):

“There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood; and these three are one” (/ John
5:8). This means the Spirit of sanctification, and the
blood of redemption, and the water of Baptism, which
three things are one and remain undivided, and not
one of them is separated from union with the others.”

9. ) Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne (1311-12):

“Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who
are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by
all, just as there is “one God and one faith” (Eph. 4:5),
which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Denz. 482)

10. ) Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, (1274):

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with
original sin go down into hell, but there they receive
different punishments.” (Denz. 464)

11. ) The Athanasian Creed:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith
except everyone do keep whole and undefiled; without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic
faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and

{ 49 }

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

Trinity in Unity . . . Furthermore, it is necessary to
everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the
Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ . .. Who suffered
for our salvation ... And they that have done good shall
go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil,
into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith; which
except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be
saved.”

12. ) Pope Innocent III, Lateran Council (1215):

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which no one at all is saved.”

13. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, (1441):

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those
not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans,
but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot
become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into
everlasting fire which was prepare for the devil and his
angels” (Matt. 25: 41), unless before the end of life the
same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of
the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of
benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgivings, and
other functions of piety and exercises of Christian
service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has
shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved,
unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714)

14. ) Pope Pius IX, Unam Sanctam (1302):

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to
maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also
apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with
simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation
nor the remission of sins... ‘In her then is ‘one Lord, one
faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”’

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

218

15. ) Pope Paul IV, Council of Trent, Profession of Faith (1565):

“...I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly
seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus
Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the
salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary
for each individual to receive them all...”.

16. ) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter 7, titled, Justification and

its Causes:

“The instrumental cause (of justification) is the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is the “sacrament of
faith,” without which no man was ever justified.”

(Denz. 799)

17. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (1439):

“The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every
sin, original and actual, also of every punishment which
is due to the sin itself. For this reason, no satisfaction is
to be enjoined on the baptized for then past sins.”

(Denz. 696)

18. ) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (1546):

“If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which is conferred in Baptism, the guilt of
original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of
that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not
taken away, but is only brushed over and or not imputed:
let him be anathema.” (Denz. 792)

19. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (1439):

“For through Baptism we are spiritually reborn.”

(Denz. 695)

20. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantata Domino (1441):

“The Sacrament of Baptism... through which we are
snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted
among the sons of God.” (Denz. 712)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

219

21. ) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (1546), Ch. 5:

“God hates nothing in the regenerated because there is
no condemnation for those truly buried with Christ by
means of Baptism into death (Rom.6:4), but putting off
the old man and putting on the new man which was
created according to God (Eph.4:22 ff; Col.3:9 f), are
made innocent, without stain, pure, guiltless and
beloved sons of God...” (Denz.792)

22. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Decree for the Greeks (1439):

“It is likewise defined that the souls of those, who after
the reception of Baptism have incurred no stain of sin at
all, when released from the same bodies are immediately
received into heaven, and see clearly the one and Triune
God Himself as He is...” (Denz. 693)

23. ) Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

“Christ indicated Baptism as the means whereby future
believers were to be grafted on the Body of the Church...

Finally, on the tree of the Cross He won for Himself His
Church, that is, all the members of His Mystical Body,
who are incorporated in this Mystical Body by the
waters of Baptism through the saving virtue of this
Cross.” (PTC. 1027, 1030)

24. ) Pope St. Innocent I (401-17) declared:

“That the rewards of eternal life are given without
Baptism is very foolish.” (Epistle 29)

25. ) Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

“Through the waters of Baptism those who are bom into
this world dead in sin are not only born again and made
members of the Church, but being sealed with a spiritual
character they become able and fit to receive the other
sacraments.”

26. ) Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943):

“Only those are to be considered real members of the
Church who have been regenerated in the waters of

52

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

220

Baptism, and profess the true Faith... Consequently, as
in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one
Body, one Lord, and one Baptism.” (Denz. 2286)

27. ) Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947):

“Baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who have not
been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently
are not members of Christ.”

28. ) Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (December 11, 1925):

“The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on
earth.... The gospels present this kingdom as one which
men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually
enter except by faith and by baptism, which through an
external rite, signifies and produces an interior
regeneration.”

29. ) Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, On the Rosary, (1895):

“Through you, O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, the Apostles
have preached salvation to the nations; through you the
demons have been put to rout and mankind has been
summoned back to Heaven; through you every misguided
creature held in the thrall of idols is led to recognize the truth;
through you have the faithful been brought to the laver of holy
Baptism and churches been founded among every people.”

30. ) Pope St. Zosimus, Apostolic Letter to the Oriental Churches (418):

“Not one of our children is held not guilty until he is
freed through Baptism.” (Denz. 109a)

31. ) Pope St. Leo the Great (Epistle XV: 10):

“Since by the transgression of the first man, the whole
progeny of the human race is vitiated; no one can be
freed from the condition of the old man except by the
sacrament of the Baptism of Christ.”

32. ) Pope St. Gregory the Great {Moralia IV, Preface 3):

“Whoever is not loosed by the waters of rebirth remains
bound by the first chain of guilt.”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

221

33. ) Benedict XIV, Bull Nuper ad Nos, Solemn Profession of Faith Prescribed

for Maronites, (1743):

“Likewise, I profess that Baptism is necessary for
salvation.” (Denz. 1470)

34. ) Pope Innocent III, Solemn Profession of Faith Prescribed to the

Waldensians (1208):

“And we believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, the
original sin which has been contracted as well as those
committed voluntarily.” (Denz. 424)

35. ) Pope Innocent ITI, Apostolic Letter on Baptism (1201):

“But through the Sacrament of Baptism the guilt of one
made red by the Blood of Christ is remitted, and to the
kingdom of Heaven one also arrives, whose gate the
Blood of Christ has mercifully opened for the faithful.”

(Denz. 410)

36. ) St. Gregory Nanzianzen, Oration of the Holy Lights:

“Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or
bestial; others honor Baptism but they delay; some out of
carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others
are not able to receive Baptism because of infancy or some
voluntary circumstance which prevents their receiving the gift,
even if they desire it. I think the first group will have to suffer
punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for then-
contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished,
but less, because it was not through wickedness so much as
foolishness that brought their failure. The third group will be
neither glorified, nor punished; for, although unsealed, they are
not wicked. If you were able to judge a man who intends to
commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of
murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who
desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since
you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? Put it
this way: if desire has equal power with actual Baptism, you
would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

222

itself were Glory! Do you suffer by not attaining the actual
Glory, so long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!”

37. ) St. Ambrose, Dc Mysteriis, Chapter 4:

“One is the baptism which the Church administers, of water and
the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized. Nor
does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water. Now,
even the catechumen believes; but unless he be baptized, he
cannot receive remission of his sins.”

“No one ascends into the kingdom of Heaven except by the
Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not
infants nor anyone hindered by any necessity. When the Lord
Jesus came to John and John said, ‘I ought to be baptized by Thee,
and dost Thou come to me?’ Jesus said: ‘Permit it to be so for
now. For this it becometh us to fulfill all justice’ (Matt. 3, 14-15).
Behold how all justice rests on Baptism.”

38. ) Pope St. Sylvester, Nicene Creed (325):

“I confess one baptism unto the remission of sins.”

39. ) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (1439):

“...more over the souls of those who depart in actual mortal
sin or in original sin only , descend immediately into hell but to
undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

In return for answering your questions, I ask that you please sit down with me
so we can go over the Faith together. I pray every day for Catholic unity, but
unity can be had only in Truth. Comfort is in numbers. We cannot save the
Church - the Church saves us. The fundamental Dogmas and teachings that
state all people must be Catholic to be saved and that the Sacrament of Baptism
is necessary to mark one as a Catholic need to be restored, preached, and lived.
There is no other way to salvation except through these clear teachings of our
Holy Mother Church. It comes down to humility and simply living and teaching
the purity of the Catholic Faith under Our Lady’s Precious Mantle. To continue
to teach otherwise is to deceive people about the Truth, and without the Truth
we cannot be saved.

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

223

After everything you have read and studied over the years, I ask you to answer |
these three simple questions with a yes or no:

1. ) Are the Sacraments (an outward sign instituted by Christ) necessary for

all men to be saved? Yes or No

2. ) Is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary to mark someone as a Catholic?

- <■

Yes or No

3. ) Do all people need to be marked as a Catholic to get to Heaven?

Yes or No

The Catholic Church teaches YES to all three questions. I hope you answered 1
the same.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Rev. Father Dominic Crawford

ADDENDUM : When people questioned the priests of Vatican II in the 1960’s,
they were expected to keep silent and go along with what they were told, or to
get out. Few people held strong to the Pillars of the Faith against the
liberalizing clergy. Aren’t you doing the same thing today? Why are you
telling people to keep silent and go along with whatever you say or get out?
There are people willing to sit down and objectively discuss the faith with you,
and the response they are given is “Keep silent or get out.” Keeping the people
ignorant is deceitful and deception is a tool of Satan. I recall at a priests’
meeting in Nebraska where you stated that “there are certain parents who
believe that Natural Family Planning is wrong and that there is only one
Baptism unto the remission of sins, but that their children do not really believe.

In twenty or thirty years the parents will be dead.” These words have never left
my heart and mind, and I pray every day that Our Lady will intercede for those
souls influenced by these false notions and that they will start seeking the Truth
once again. It is simple, Natural Family Planning is wrong and there is one
Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. This one Baptism includes water and
through the Sacrament of Baptism Original sin is removed, and we are marked
as members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. This mark is
necessary for a person to be saved. There is no authority that can overrule the
Church’s Solemn Teachings.

The Solemn Magisterium (the Supreme Court) of the Catholic Church has
spoken once and for all.

56

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet 224

God has worked countless miracles to bring the Sacrament of Baptism to
people. St. Martin of Tours raised a catechumen from the dead so that he could
baptize him. This was done in the 4 lh Century A.D.

Why would God work countless miracles if people “could be saved” without
the Sacrament of Baptism? Because God will never be unfaithful to His
promises, and Holy Mother Church has defended literally Christ’s infallible
words:

“Unless a man be bom again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the
kingdom of Heaven.” (John 3, 5)

St. Peter, the first pope, was imprisoned on two separate occasions during his
25 years reign as the Vicar of Christ. St. Peter was kept in the Mamertine Prison
(picture above) at the base of the Capitoline Hill in Rome during his second
Roman imprisonment. Access to the prison was through a hole in the ceiling,
and above the prison was a room for the prison guards.

God worked a miracle by causing water to gush forth in the prison for St. Peter
to baptize the converts he was preaching to (including two jailers). Today this
spring of water is situated next to the altar.

‘Heaven and earth shall pass away but My words shall not pass away.’
(Matt. 24: 35)

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

225

Revision Log

Revisions to syntax, typography, spelling, grammar, etc. will not
be recorded unless they substantially change the meaning of an
argument. Otherwise this log will catalog any revisions made to Contra
Crawford that bear more directly on content.

• Version 1.1: An historical mistake regarding Pope St.
Leo the Great’s letter to Flavian was corrected (pp. 101-
02 & 118). The previous version argued that Pope Leo ’ s
letter was entirely distinct from the Council of
Chalcedon, but the letter was in fact read and accepted
at the council. Resultantly previous mentions of the
letter being mis-cited by Crawford have been removed,
and more attention has been paid to the letter’s actual
content, context, and meaning than in the previous
version.

o A minor citation error on page 47 was fixed. Fr.
Laux’s work is now cited simply as “page 119”
whereas the previous version read “volume 1,
page 119.”

Appendix C: Crawford’s (2018) Untitled Booklet

227